Bharat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7164 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7164 Raj
Judgement Date : 13 May, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bharat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 May, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6831/2022

Bharat Singh S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Chandgothi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, At Present Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Chandgothi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Joint Secretary, Revenue (Group-I) Department, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its Registrar.

4. District Collector, Churu.

5. Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh, District Churu.

6. Tehsildar, Rajgarh, District Churu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia Mr. Sudesh Bijarnia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

13/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

prayer to quash and set aside the Budget declaration dated

03.03.2022 (Annex.2), whereby Hon'ble the Chief Minister of

Rajasthan while presenting Budget on 03.03.2022 for the year

2022-23, has made a declaration for establishing a Sub Tehsil at

Hamirwas Bada (Rajgarh), District Churu along with several other

Sub Tehsils in various Districts of the State of Rajasthan.

(2 of 3) [CW-6831/2022]

As per the petitioner, who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat

Chandgothi of District Churu, the Budget declaration for

establishing Sub Tehsil at Hamirwas Bada is not justified. It is

mentioned in the writ petition that many Sarpanchs of the area

are also opposing the establishment of Sub Tehsil at Hamirwas

Bada. It is claimed in the writ petition that most suitable place for

establishing Sub Tehsil is Chandgothi and not Hamirwas Bada.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having

gone through the material available on record, this Court is of the

opinion that establishment of Sub Tehsil in a District is purely an

administrative matter and this court cannot interfere in such

matters while exercising powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India until and unless it is demonstrated that the

action of the State Government of establishing the new Sub Tehsil

is in violation of any law or suffering from malafidies.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State

of A.P. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 364 has observed as under:-

"31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub- Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the Gram Panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place `X' rather than place `Y' as recommended by

(3 of 3) [CW-6831/2022]

the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners".

In such circumstances, I do not find any case for interference

in the writ petition, however, the petitioner as well as the other

public representatives can very well approach the State

Government for estaglishing Sub Tehsil at Village Chandgothi

instead of village Hamirwas Bada.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that a joint representation (photostat copy of which is

annexed as Annex.3 in this writ petition) has already been

preferred on behalf of many of the Sarpanchs and other public

representatives before the Hon'ble Chief Minister through the

District Collector, Churu.

In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this

writ petition with a direction to the concerned authorities to

consider and decide the representation (Annex.3) filed on behalf

of the petitioner and other public representatives preferably within

a period of two months, if the same has already not been decided

till date.