Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 644 (UTT)

Vachaspati Rayal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-28

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Since both the writ petitions raise a common question of law, we dispose of the same by a common judgment. 2. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 84 of 2016 was filed first seeking a mandamus to restrain respondent nos. 1 & 2 not to shift the offices situated in Narendra Nagar Town to any other place. 3. Very briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:- Narendra Nagar is a town, which came into existence in 1919, when Manvendra Shah of Tehri Garhwal moved his capital from Tehri to Narendra Nagar. It is one of the oldest Nagar Palika Parishads in Uttarakhand. After the princely State of Tehri Garhwal was merged with the State of Uttar Pradesh, after India got independence, Narendra Nagar Town became the headquarter of District Tehri Garhwal. A decision was taken in 1989 for the construction of Tehri Dam Project. It is decided to establish New Tehri. The policy decision was taken to shift the headquarter of the District Tehri Garhwal from Narendra Nagar to New Tehri in the year 1989. A notification was issued on 10.4.1989 for shifting of the district headquarter from Narendra Nagar to New Tehri. It is stated that on 8.1.1993, there was a meeting and it was decided in the said meeting that some offices, which are of comparatively less importance may be retained at Narendra Nagar. The committee had taken into consideration that the said town remained the district headquarters for almost seven decades and the entire economy of the town survives around it and the persons coming to district headquarter, and at the said point of time, at least 14 district level offices were directed to be retained at Narendra Nagar, while other offices were shifted. The total population of the Narendra Nagar Town is approximately 7000, and there is no other industry. The Government decided to establish a degree college in Narendra Nagar. The headquarter of SCERT was also established at Narendra Nagar. It was decided that the headquarter of the Forest Development Corporation will be established at Narendra Nagar. It was decided at the headquarter of Forest Development Corporation will be established at Narendra Nagar. But the said office could not be made functional at Narendra Nagar. The headquarter of SCERT was also established at Narendra Nagar. It was decided that the headquarter of the Forest Development Corporation will be established at Narendra Nagar. It was decided at the headquarter of Forest Development Corporation will be established at Narendra Nagar. But the said office could not be made functional at Narendra Nagar. The High Court has notified Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and further the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate is also situated in Narendra Nagar. A police training college is at Narendra Nagar, which is a State Level institution, and is officially functioning for approximately five years. One Shri. Subodh Uniyal was a local MLA from Narendra Nagar Town having won the election in the year 2002. He lost the election in the year 2007, but he has been again elected as MLA in the general election in the year 2012. The said MLA was a member of the Congress Party, but in the recent past, in the changed political situation, the said MLA of Narendra Nagar constituency is not associated with the ruling party. It is the further case of the petitioner that this is a mode of retaliation; the residents of Narendra Nagar constituency are being targeted and only for such change of political situation, the respondents under the instruction of the political masters are taking steps for shifting the offices from Narendra Nagar. Since even presently there is no elected MLA from Narendra Nagar and the residents of Narendra Nagar have no option but to raise their complaint through their political leadership, the PIL petition is sought to be justified. A counter affidavit has been filed. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:- “Vide notification no. 946 sa kha/87/23/MI-3/S-1/T-7/MS. 4085 dated 24.02.1987 due to the construction of Tehri Dam and due to apprehended submerge of Old Tehri city the offices which were situated in Old Tehri city was decided to be shifted in New Tehri city in two phases and in the Ist Phase the offices situated in Tehri City were decided to be shifted and in the 2nd phases the offices situated in Narendra Nagar were to be shifted. A copy of Government Order dated 24.02.1987 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-1 to this affidavit. The erstwhile State of U.P. vide its office memorandum no. A copy of Government Order dated 24.02.1987 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-1 to this affidavit. The erstwhile State of U.P. vide its office memorandum no. 8-3(13)/89-82/SA-5 dated 10.04.1989 has granted its approval for shifting of the District Headquarter, District Tehri Garhwal to New Tehri and in pursuance to the aforesaid Government order since the offices were directed to be shifted in phases from Tehri to New Tehri and from Narendra Nagar to New Tehri and the offices from time to time are being shifted from Narendra Nagar to the Head Quarter, New Tehri accordingly. A copy of Government order dated 10.04.1989 is being annexed herewith and marked as annexure CA-2 to this affidavit. Apart from above, it is significant to mention here that the New Tehri City is situated almost centre of the District Tehri. The detail showing the status of different blocks of District Tehri and Narendra Nagar as well as distance from New Tehri is detailed below:- (a) So far as the Development Block-Chamba is concerned, it consists of 08 Nayay Panchayats, 104 Village Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 221. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block-Chamba is 50897. The distance of Chamba and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 12 km and 46 km respectively. (b) So far as the Development Kirtinagar is concerned, it consists of 08 Nayay Panchayats, 84 Villages Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 158. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block-Kirtinagar is 45864. The distance of Kirtinagar and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 80 km and 117 km respectively. (c) So far as the Development Block Deoprayag (Hindolakhal) is concerned, it consists of 10 Nayay Panchayats, 116 Village Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 260. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block- Deoprayag (Hindolakhal) and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 66 km and 85 km respectively. (d) So far as the Development Block Vilangana (Ghansali) is concerned, it consists of 11 Nayay Panchayats, 186 Village Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 268. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block- Vilangana (Ghansali) is 109639. (d) So far as the Development Block Vilangana (Ghansali) is concerned, it consists of 11 Nayay Panchayats, 186 Village Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 268. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block- Vilangana (Ghansali) is 109639. The distanced of Vilangana (Ghansali) and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 60 km and 120 km respectively. (e) So far as the Development Block-Thauldhar (Chham) is concerned, it consists of 05 Nayay Panchayats, 93 Village Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 179. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block- Thauldar (Chham) is 43403. The distance of Thauldhar (Chham) and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 57 km and 101 km respectively. (f) So far as the Development Block-Jakhanidhar (Tippri) is concerned, it consists of 07 Nayay Panchayat, 92 Village Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 150. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block-Jakhanidhar (Tippri) is 47520. The distance of Jakhanidhar (Tippri) and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 30 km and 70 km respectively. (g) So far as the Development Block-Jaunpur (Thatude) is concerned, it consists of 10 Nayay Panchayat, 146 Village Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 259. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block-Jaunpur (Thatude) is 72219. The distance of Jaunpur (Thatude) and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 76 km and 110 km respectively. (h) So far as the Development Block-Pratap Nagar is concerned, it consists of 08 Nayay Panchayat, 100 Village Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 121. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block-Pratap Nagar is 62618. The distance of Pratap Nagar and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 80 km and 140 km respectively. (i) So far as the Development Block-Narendra Nagar (Fakot) is concerned, it consists of 08 Nayay Panchayat, 117 Village Panchayats and number of revenue villages are 210. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block-Narendra Nagar (Fakot) is 635888. The distance of Narendra Nagar (Fakot) and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 60 km and 18 km respectively. A copy of the chart is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-3 to this affidavit. It is submitted that as per census of 2011 the total population of Development Block-Narendra Nagar (Fakot) is 635888. The distance of Narendra Nagar (Fakot) and Narendra Nagar from New Tehri is 60 km and 18 km respectively. A copy of the chart is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-3 to this affidavit. (j) Apart from above, the Hon’ble Chief Minister in its announcement no. 653/2012 dated 22.06.2012 has also stated that the offices situated in Narendra Nagar would have been shifted to the District Headquarter, New Tehri from time to time, which has no concerned with the present political sequence. A copy of the announcement dated 22.06.2012 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-4 to this affidavit. It is submitted that there is no public interest is involved in restraining the shifting of offices from Narendra Nagar to district Headquarter. It is respectfully submitted that from the previous para it is apparent that the New Tehri which is a Headquarter of the District-Tehri is situated almost centre to the District and all the residents of the district has convenience with the district Headquarter whereas from the District-Narendra Nagar the persons have to travel through hill area. Apart from the above, it is also significant to mention here that the New Tehri is newly developed city and occupied with all the civic amenities and as such the shifting of the offices to the New Tehri is in the interest of public at large. 4. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that on 10th April, 1989, a decision was taken to shift the offices located at Narendra Nagar to Tehri Garhwal. Reliance has also been placed on Annexure 4, which purports to be a declaration by the Chief Minister to shift the offices from Narendra Nagar. This is dated 22.06.2012. 5. It is the case that it was decided to shift the offices in two phases and the offices in Narendra Nagar were to be shifted in the second phase. 6. The other writ petition (WPPIL No. 86 of 2016) is filed by the party in person seeking the following reliefs: i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to execute/implement the Government Order dated 22.6.2012 issued by the Government. ii. 6. The other writ petition (WPPIL No. 86 of 2016) is filed by the party in person seeking the following reliefs: i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to execute/implement the Government Order dated 22.6.2012 issued by the Government. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to transfer/shift the 12 district level offices from Narendra Nagar to district headquarter at New Tehri in pursuance to the G.O. dated 22.6.2012. 7. In other words, the petitioners want to have the Government Order dated 22.6.2012 to be implemented. 8. In brief, the case is that for all practical purposes of public at large residing in District Tehri Garhwal, that there are 12 District Level offices which are still functioning and located at Narendra Nagar, should they be transferred and shifted to the district headquarter New Tehri. Reliance is placed on the distance chart between the headquarter at New Tehri and Narendra Nagar. It is the case of the petitioner that all the blocks situated in district Tehri are very much nearer than Narendra Nagar. It is stated that if the District Level offices are allowed to continue at Narendra Nagar, which is headquarter of Narendra Nagar Block, then under such circumstances people of remaining blocks will also demand some District Level offices at their respective blocks. Counter affidavit is filed by referring to Government Orders dated 24.2.1987 and 10.4.1989, and also the announcement dated 22.6.2012, which is also referred in the counter affidavit in the other case. 9. We heard Shri U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner in WPPIL No. 84 of 2016. We also heard Shri. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner would emphasize the minutes of the meeting, which took place in 1993. According to him, while in the first paragraph, it was decided that the offices can be shifted later on from Narendra Nagar, in paragraph 2, it is clearly decided that some of the less important offices may be continued at Narendra Nagar as otherwise it will reduce the said town to a ghost town. According to him, while in the first paragraph, it was decided that the offices can be shifted later on from Narendra Nagar, in paragraph 2, it is clearly decided that some of the less important offices may be continued at Narendra Nagar as otherwise it will reduce the said town to a ghost town. He would further contend that it is only on account of the political developments which we have adverted to in which the MLA in question has parted ways that the decision has taken. He would further contend that reliance placed on the Chief Minister’s announcement of 2012 cannot assist the respondents. He would submit that there are several announcements made by a Chief Minister, and he would further submit that there is no considered decision taken by the Government, particularly with reference to the distance from Narendra Nagar and Tehri Garhwal to the other Blocks and Panchayats located in the district. He poses the question, when the decision, as recorded in the minutes of meeting held in 1993 showed that the shifting of offices from Narendra Nagar will render it a ghost town and it was holding the field for such a long time, there is no acceptable explanation for suddenly taking a decision in 2016. He would submit that there is no reason why after the so called announcement by the Chief Minister in 2012 for not shifting the offices from Narendra Nagar for a period of four years and decision is suddenly taken only after political developments, which have been adverted to in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. Therefore, he would submit that offices should not be allowed to be shifted. He would further submit that the elections are around the corner and it is left for the new Government to take a decision. 11. Per contra, learned Chief Standing Counsel would point out that as early as in 1987, a decision was taken by the Government in the name of the Governor to shift the offices from Narendra Nagar to New Tehri. He would further submit that as far as the minutes in 1993 are concerned, it was a meeting, which was headed by the Special Secretary (Irrigation) and the other members, who are Joint Secretary (Revenue) and Joint Secretary (Finance). There is no decision taken by the Governor as such. He would further submit that as far as the minutes in 1993 are concerned, it was a meeting, which was headed by the Special Secretary (Irrigation) and the other members, who are Joint Secretary (Revenue) and Joint Secretary (Finance). There is no decision taken by the Governor as such. Therefore, the decision taken in the name of the Governor in the year 1987 should prevail over the same. He would further submit that the reason for not interfering with the decision was lack of accommodation available in New Tehri. As of now, with reference to the averments made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted that New Tehri has become developed and can accommodate the offices. He would submit that even in the minutes of the meeting that took place in the year 1993 what was decided was to shift the offices in Narendra Nagar, later on. As regards the gap between and after the announcement of the Chief Minister in the year 2012, he would submit that the Court may find that it was because of the obvious reason, which is clear from paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the matter was put on hold. 12. Both these petitions are filed in purported public interest jurisdiction. Public interest litigation has its origins in the perceived need felt by the Courts to relax the rule as to locus standi, so that the Court could reach out to the people particularly the poorer and the weaker sections, the prisoners, the persons working without minimum wages, so that their fundamental rights could be secured. Any person, who may not be personally aggrieved, would take up cudgels on behalf of the public or a section of the public, so that their legal and fundamental rights could be secured. Over a period of time, it has grown as a head of the litigation in our country. It has also come in for considerable abuse, where the personal interest litigation is often used a as public interest litigation. While it is a very vital and effective tool in the hands of the Court, if it is used with circumspection and discretion mindful of the contours of the Courts jurisdiction also, it can certainly produce grave injustice, if it is not handled with proper care. While it is a very vital and effective tool in the hands of the Court, if it is used with circumspection and discretion mindful of the contours of the Courts jurisdiction also, it can certainly produce grave injustice, if it is not handled with proper care. The decision to have a headquarter of the district at a place is ordinarily beyond the scope of judicial review. It is an executive decision taken by the executive with reference to various relevant facts and the Court would not be equipped to interfere in such policy decisions. The Courts are not elected. Courts are not accountable unlike the elected representatives and such decision are best left to the authorities, who are accountable to take such decisions. 13. All the decisions taken by all the public functionaries must be taken bona fide. Public functionaries must always bear in mind that malice can have no place at all, when a decision is taken. What can be relevant and must remain uppermost in the mind of the decision maker is public interest. 14. In this case, undoubtedly, on account of the submergence of the area on account of the Tehri Dam, the district headquarters was to be located at New Tehri. A decision was taken to shift the offices from Narendra Nagar in phases. We also do notice that however in 1993, the Committee already took note of the existence of certain offices in Narendra Nagar, which were characterized as less important and it took the view that they need not be shifted, as it would render Narendra Nagar a ghost town. These offices continued to remain in Narendra Nagar till 2016. In the meantime, there is new development in the form of public announcement by the Chief Minister on 19th May, 2012 which was notified on 22.06.2012, to shift the offices from Narendra Nagar to New Tehri. Things did not move immediately thereafter apparently. The move to shift the offices, apparently, took shape in 2016. According to the petitioner, this is a direct fall out of the political developments, which took place recently in the State on account of which the local MLA, is not continuing with the party in power. Things did not move immediately thereafter apparently. The move to shift the offices, apparently, took shape in 2016. According to the petitioner, this is a direct fall out of the political developments, which took place recently in the State on account of which the local MLA, is not continuing with the party in power. The other side of the picture is that in the counter affidavit, there is reference to comparative distance chart from Narendra Nagar to various areas within New Tehri and from Narendra Nagar to New Tehri tending to indicate that they are closer to New Tehri which is the headquarter. Of course, according to the petitioner, these aspects have not been considered when the decision has been taken and therefore, the decision taken in 1993 meeting has not been overridden in the manner known to law. 15. We must remind ourselves about the boundaries of our jurisdiction. While there has been considerable expansion of the Courts jurisdiction in the matter of policy, Courts would ordinarily adopt in public interest an attitude of hands off as the policy decision are best taken by those, who are charged with the duty and are equipped with the inputs to take an appropriate decision. The Courts would not sit in the judgment over the wisdom of a decision. The Courts are ordinarily concerned with the legality of the decision and what the Courts are more in particular concerned is the legality of the decision making process. There is a Government decision taken in 1987 to shift the offices from Narendra Nagar. There is, no doubt, that it is an order notified as per law. Then, there are subsequent developments, which we have adverted to. Still further, there is an announcement, but which was put the matter on hold for a long period of time. We would think that in the circumstances of this case, it will not be appropriate for us to grant the relief of restraining the respondents from shifting the offices as such. But at the same time, we would think that the interest of justice would be best subserved, if we direct the first respondent to consider the question of shifting the offices spread over a period of time. This we do, in view of the facts of this case, which we have already narrated. But at the same time, we would think that the interest of justice would be best subserved, if we direct the first respondent to consider the question of shifting the offices spread over a period of time. This we do, in view of the facts of this case, which we have already narrated. Thus, while we do not grant the relief of restraining the Government from shifting the offices, we only direct that the first respondent will consider the question of shifting the offices located at Narendra Nagar spreading it over a period of time in phases, having regard to the facts which have been referred to. The WPPIL No. 84 of 2016 is disposed of as above. As far as WPPIL No. 86 of 2016 is concerned, we do not see any reason to pass any other order. The writ petition will stand closed.