Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1564 (RAJ)

Bharat Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-13

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. 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. 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. 3. 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. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.R. Raghupathy v. 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. 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 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". 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. 9. The stay petition is also disposed of.