R. D. SHUKIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also dispose of W. P. No. 290/97 as common question of law and facts arise in both the cases. Powers vested in the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been invoked in both the cases. ( 2 ) THE case of petitioner - High Court Bar Association. Indore through one of its members Shri Ashok Kutumbale has made averments as follows: Petitioner is Association and looks after the welfare of its members. The office of respondent No. 3 Collector Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) was established at Indore vide Notification No. 16/90 (N. T.) - Cus. , dated 6-4-1990 (Annexure P/i ). ( 3 ) THE establishment of office of respondent No. 3 at Indore was done as major part of appellate work arise from Indore and Pithampur (Industrial Area) and as also Indore being nearer to Dewas (other industrial area), large number of industries are established in different parts of city and its surrounding areas. It was a facility to the public industries that they save their substantial amount from visiting office distinctly placed. It has further been submitted that the Union of India respondent No. 1 has decided to shift the office to Bhopal which will deprive the poor litigants from exercising their rights of appeal shall not be in the public interest. It has also been submitted that Indore has been declared to be a dry port and therefore, it is likely to come up as international port. ( 4 ) THE office of Collector (Appeals) has been created at Nagpur and. Therefore, the areas distinctly placed have already been taken away and only area which is nearer to Indore come within the jurisdiction of Collector (Appeals ). ( 5 ) THE decision of respondents to shift the office of respondent No. 3 from Indore to Bhopal or any other place is against the public interest, arbitrary and unwarranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case this will result in hardship to the litigants and virtually deprivation of appeals. This will not only cause inconvenience but shall further cause increase in expenses of litigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case this will result in hardship to the litigants and virtually deprivation of appeals. This will not only cause inconvenience but shall further cause increase in expenses of litigation. During the pendency of petition a further averment has been made by making an amendment that the seat of the Bench of High Court is located, at Indore, good number of senior and experienced lawyers are available here, if the office is shifted to Bhopal the litigants would be deprived of the services of good experienced lawyers. ( 6 ) PETITIONER has no other efficacious remedy. As such approached the Court for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. The relief sought is that the record of the case concerning shifting of the office of respondent No. 3 from Indore to Bhopal be called and the order with respect to shifting of office be quashed. ( 7 ) DURING the pendency of this petition and after return was filed by respondents Writ Petition No. 390/97 has been filed by way of public interest litigation on behalf of Pithampur Audhyogik Sangathan through its President, Shri Gautam Kothari. Almost same facts have been reiterated in this new petition. It has been averred that Indore is a commercial capital of Madhya Pradesh. Other offices like Labour Commissioner, Sales-tax Commissioner Provident Fund Commissioner are situated at Indore. A decision with respect to establishment of office of respondent No. 3 was taken in the year 1990. There is no change of circumstances, as such the order shifting the same deserves to be quashed. Similar relief prohibiting shifting the office from Indore to Bhopal has been sought in this petition also. ( 8 ) RESPONDENTS have filed reply to M. P. No. 1054/91 and submitted that Office of Collector, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) was established at Indore vide Notification referred above but no Collector was appointed till January, 1991. All appeals were heard and disposed of either at Delhi or at Bombay. Collector (Appeals) hears appeals against orders of Deputy Collector/assistant Collector /superintendents located throughout the jurisdiction of Indore (M. P. and Vidharbha Region ). A table showing the pendency at various places has been shown as below: Thus, only 574 cases arise from Division Indore-I and Indore-Il. All appeals were heard and disposed of either at Delhi or at Bombay. Collector (Appeals) hears appeals against orders of Deputy Collector/assistant Collector /superintendents located throughout the jurisdiction of Indore (M. P. and Vidharbha Region ). A table showing the pendency at various places has been shown as below: Thus, only 574 cases arise from Division Indore-I and Indore-Il. Ujjain and Ratlam; while 75% 1 Nagpur I & Nagpur -II 93 2 Amravati 101 3 Chandrapur 42 4 Raipur 187 5 Jabalpur 271 6 Satna 100 7 Bhilai 183 8 Bhopal 186 9 Gwalior 158 10 Sagar 29 11 Indore -I & Indore II 229 12 Ujjain 147 13 Ratlam 98 cases relating to 1650 appeals arise from area nearer to Bhopal. Thus, large number of litigants would be benefitted because of shifting of Office from Indore to Bhopal. A chart showing the distance from various places have also been given which is as follows: (in Kms. but rounded off to nearest 50 Kill.) (the above are approximate distances) ( 9 ) THUS, from distances shown as above, it is evident that large number of litigants would be required to travel less if the office is shifted to Bhopal Pithampur and Dewas do not constitute even 15% of total appeal work. So far as the Bench at Indore is concerned it has been submitted that the Main Seat of High Court is located at Jabalpur, other Bench is at Gwalior and therefore, senior experienced lawyers are available in those places also. The litigants can conveniently get the services of such lawyers from thoseplaces. The second appeal i. e. appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) lies to Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) is located at Delhi. ( 10 ) GREATER number of Industries are located else where instead of Madhya Pradesh and Vidharbha Region. Chart showing revenue recoveries from other areas within Madhya Pradesh has been shown which is as follows:apart from this Nagpur and surrounding areas contribute nearly Rs. 350 Crores of revenue in a year. Indore and Pithampur contribute only nearly 4. 6% revenue he creation of dry port at Indore would hardly create any appeal work. Thus, the petition is against the public interest and it favours the litigants of Indore only and is prejudicial to litigants of other parts of Madhya Pradesh and Vidharbha Region. 350 Crores of revenue in a year. Indore and Pithampur contribute only nearly 4. 6% revenue he creation of dry port at Indore would hardly create any appeal work. Thus, the petition is against the public interest and it favours the litigants of Indore only and is prejudicial to litigants of other parts of Madhya Pradesh and Vidharbha Region. The petitioners have forgotten and difficulties of litigants of those areas. Bhopal is otherwise centrally located and the Capital of Madhya Pradesh. Bhopal and Nagpur both are well connected by train and air. It has, therefore, been contended that shifting of office from Indore to Bhopal is in greater public interest. ( 11 ) THE petitioners have filed Rejoinder and submitted that the infrastructure for office is already available at Indore and new infra -structure including office building will have to be made. The facts as to the amendments made in the petition have already been referred above. ( 12 ) RESPONDENTS by way of reply to Rejoinder have made averment that the built up area of nearly 21. 000 sq. feet has already been acquired at Bhopal at a cost of Rs. 1. 90. 20. 420/and the same has been done with the administrative approval and sanction of the President. Parking area of more than 3000 sq. ft. at the cost of Rs. 9. 86. 000/- has already been acquired. ( 13 ) THE respondents have further made submissions that the reply and return furnished in M. P. No. 1054/91 may be taken for the purpose of W. P. No. 290/97 also. ( 14 ) PARTIES agreed to make submissions in both petitions simultaneously. ( 15 ) THE contention of learned counsel for petitioners Shri A. M. Mathur is that Central Government having exhausted its power of location of Office of Collector (Appeals) at Indore, now has no further power to shift the same. The statutory discretion has been exercised once and. Therefore, the place could not be changed without assigning valid reasons. The decision of shifting of Office of Collector (Appeals) now Commissioner (Appeals) is against public interest, arbitrary, and unfair; rational and relevant principles and reason for the change has not been assigned and. Therefore, the order of shifting of Office of Collector (Appeals) be quashed. Therefore, the place could not be changed without assigning valid reasons. The decision of shifting of Office of Collector (Appeals) now Commissioner (Appeals) is against public interest, arbitrary, and unfair; rational and relevant principles and reason for the change has not been assigned and. Therefore, the order of shifting of Office of Collector (Appeals) be quashed. ( 16 ) AS against it Shri J. P. Gupta learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of respondents has submitted that a notification with respect to shifting of the Office of Collector (Appeals) has already been made and the same has not been challenged and, therefore the relief as sought by petitioners which speaks of order only, cannot be allowed. The location, shifting and change of the office is within the administrative discretion of respondent No. 1-Union of India. ( 17 ) RESPONDENT, Union of India has taken into consideration the convenience of litigants, as is evident from the feagures given above and, therefore, the shifting of Office of Collector (Appeals) to Bhopal would be in the larger public interest. The order and notification cannot be termed to be arbitrary and unfair. The petition has been filed to serve the parochial interest. The larger interest of the residents of other areas of Madhya Pradesh has not been taken into consideration. It has also been submitted that an authority having power to pass order has got a power to aid, amend and modify the same. Union of India in exercise of its administrative powers and after having considered the various aspects have taken a decision for shifting the Office of Collector (Appeals) to Bhopal. All arrangements for the same has been done after obtaining administrative and financial sanction. The required accommodation has already been acquired. Thus, the stoppage of the same is likely to cause wastage of public money, which shall again be against the public interest. ( 18 ) DURING the pendency of these petitions an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for taking cognizance of concept has been filed with the assertions that despite stay orders by this Court, the accommodation for the office of the Collector (Appeals) has been acquired and sufficient amount has been spent over that. This is clearly against the direction issued by this Court, and, therefore, the same amounts to contempt. ( 19 ) WE. This is clearly against the direction issued by this Court, and, therefore, the same amounts to contempt. ( 19 ) WE. There fore, decided to deal this application before deciding the main petition. We have perused order dated 5-7-199 1 passed by this court which speaks as follows: In the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from shifting office of respondent No. 3, Collector C. E. and Customs (Appeals) M. P. , Indore to Bhopal or any other place. ( 20 ) THERE is no order of maintenance of status quo. The order with respect to shifting of office, there is no allegation that the office has been shifted. It is an admitted position that the Office of Collector (Appeals) now Commissioner (Appeals) is still working at Indore. Thus, it cannot be said that there has been a disobedience of order. Petitioners have never filed an application for amendment in the order for maintaining the status quo as it is. There was absolutely no prohibition regarding acquisition of the accommodation and preparation for shining the office. In our opinion, therefore, no contempt is made out and, therefore. l. A. No. 1469/97 is dismissed. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel Shri J. P. Gupta initially took object ion to the locus standi and submitted that the two petitioners have no locus slalidi to challenge the order and notification issued by respondents for shifting the office. ( 22 ) AS against it learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the High Court Bar Association looks into the welfare of the Advocates and the petitioner Shri Ashok Kutumbale has filed petition in the public interest for saving the interest of Advocates and litigants. ( 23 ) THE other petition W. P. No. 290/97 has been filed by petitioner to save the interest of general public especially, the industrialists of the area around city of Indore, Pithampur and Dewas. ( 24 ) THESE two petitions have been filed by way of public interest litigation (Pro Bono Public. Supreme Court has entertained petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India not only of Associations organisation or individuals interested in common cause or an Advocate and even journalist but a even started proceeding under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India on the basis of a letter written by such person, The High Courts have also followed the same practice. Here in this case we are prima facie satisfied with respect to the gravity and seriousness of the complaint. The petitioner is an Advocate who IS vitally interested in dispensation of justice, which in our opinion Collector (Appeals) is required to do. S. P. Guptas case1, is a land mark on the point. We therefore, reject the preliminary objection as to the locus standi of the petitioners and hold that they have raised the issue in public interest. (Reference may be had to a decision reported in A. I. R. 1991. S. C. 19022. ( 25 ) SECTION 2 (0) of the Central Excise and Salt Act. 1944 defines Central Excise Officer, which means the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or any other officer of the Central Excise Department, or any person (including an officer of the State Government) invested by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under this Act. Rule 4 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 deals with the appointment of officers and authorisation of Central Board of Excise and Customs to appoint such person as it thinks fit to be Central. Excise Officers or to exercise all or any of the powers conferred by these rules on such officers. ( 26 ) SECTION 35 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer, lower in rank than a Collector. Central Excise, may appeal to the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) within three months from the date of communication to him of such decision or order. Section 35a of the Act deals with the procedure in appeal. ( 27 ) THERE is no dispute that the office of Collector (Appeals) Indore was established in the year 1990 vide notification referred above but the same has been substituted by M. F. (D. R.) Notification 26/95 C. E. (N. T.) 6-6-1995 whereby while retaining the Office of Commissioner Central Excise Indore the Office of Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) Bhopal has been oriented. There is no challenge to this notification. There is no challenge to this notification. ( 28 ) SECTION 21 of the General Clauses Act, provides that where, by any (Central Act) or Regulation, a power to issue notification, orders, rules, or bye-laws is conferred then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction, and conditions (if any), to add to amend, vary or rescind any (notification) orders, rules or by-laws so issued. Thus, an authority who has the power of establishing Office of Collector (Appeals) now Commissioner (Appeals) at Indore has power to amend and modify the same and further power to establish at any other place looking to the convenience of the litigants and in the interest of public at large. ( 29 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Mathur has referred to a case reported in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd, and others v. Union of India and others with specific reference to Paras 73 and 78 and submitted that the subordinate legislation does not conform to the statute under which it is made and is contrary to some other statute and on the ground that it is wholly unreasonable. We are in total agreement with the provision of law. But here subordinate legislation can be challenged not on the ground that it is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary and therefore, crucks of the matter would be whether the order of shifting: Office of Collector (Appeals) is wholly arbitrary. ( 30 ) DISCRETION is an effective tool in administration. But wrong notions about it results in ill- conceived consequences. In law it provides an option to the authority concerned to adopt one or the other alternative. But a better, proper and legal exercise of discretion is one where the authority examines the fact, is aware of law and then decides objectively and rationally what serves the interest better. ( 31 ) WE would examine the facts of the case after taking into consideration the principles of law enunciated above and further as to whether the discretions exercised by respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. ( 32 ) FIGURES and chart given by respondents have not been controverted. ( 31 ) WE would examine the facts of the case after taking into consideration the principles of law enunciated above and further as to whether the discretions exercised by respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. ( 32 ) FIGURES and chart given by respondents have not been controverted. The figures as indicated above do indicate that 75%work of appeals arise from area other than Indore, Pithampur and Dewas and only nearly 4-5% revenue is involved in the cases arising out of the area of Indore, Pithampur and Dewas. If the cases arising out of Ujjain and Dewas is also taken into consideration only nearly 3o% work would come from this area. The rest of the work 7o% comes from area like Raipur, Jabalpur, Satna, Bhilai, Gwalior and Sagar, The chart given above, does indicate that the major part of the revenue is recovered from, that area and, therefore, it is but natural that the cases arising out of that are involved much more revenue than what is involved in cases arising out of the area around Indore. ( 33 ) IF we look from the angle of public convenience distance is shown in the chart above does indicate that Bhopal is otherwise centrally located and, therefore, if respondents especially Union of India has taken a decision for shifting the Office of Commissioner (Appeal) from Indore to Bhopal, the same can neither be said to be unreasonable nor arbitrary. ( 34 ) BURDEN in such cases lies on the person who challenges the order to show that the order is arbitrary and unreasonable. (A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1135 ). ( 35 ) WHEREVER certain, orders are passed in exercise of administrative discretion vested in the authority, the judicial quest in such cases is to find the right balance between the Administrative discretion to decide the matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy thus, they ate not essentially justiciable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. ( 36 ) THE judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. The restraint has two contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial intervention the other covers the scope of the Courts ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hall marks of judicial control over administrative action. ( 36 ) THE judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. The restraint has two contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial intervention the other covers the scope of the Courts ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hall marks of judicial control over administrative action. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application of judicial review is made, but the decision making process itself. (A. I. R. 1996 S. C. 11) ( 37 ) HERE in this case the decision making process has not been seriously challenged. Even otherwise as discussed in earlier paragraphs that has been found to have been exercised in all fairness keeping in view the public interest at large. As observed in earlier paras the later notification dated 6-6-1995 has not been challenged. ( 38 ) PARTY seeking the quashment of administrative order has to show arbitrariness to the extent of perversity and unless the order is manifestly arbitrary, unjust and partial the same cannot be quashed. ( 39 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submitted that the condition for changing or amending the order of establishment of the Office of Collector (Appeals) now Commissioner (Appeals) have not been enumerated properly. We do not agree with this contention of learned counsel for petitioners. Respondents have given the facts and figures with respect to pendency of cases and the revenue involved including the distances from respective places to Bhopal and Indore. The figures and the chart referred above very clearly show that the shifting is in larger interest of public as majority of cases arise from the area which is nearer to Bhopal as compared to Indore. ( 40 ) THUS, we absolutely find no arbitrariness or unfairness in t he order and notification for change of Office of Collector (Appeals) now Commissioner (Appeals) from Indore to Bhopal. ( 41 ) FROM the discussions above it is evident that petitioners have failed to substantiate the grounds raised no arbitrariness, unfairness and unreasonableness in the order of change of office could be shown or demonstrated. Both petitions i. e. M. P. No. 1054/91 and W. P. No. 290/97, therefore, deserve dismissal and are hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties shall bear t heir own costs in both petitions. Petition dismissed. Both petitions i. e. M. P. No. 1054/91 and W. P. No. 290/97, therefore, deserve dismissal and are hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties shall bear t heir own costs in both petitions. Petition dismissed. .