Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 40 (GAU)

Tassar Levi, S/o Tassar Apak v. State Of AP

2022-01-18

NANI TAGIA

body2022
ORDER : Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing counsel for RWD/representing respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate representing respondent No. 2 and Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel representing private respondent No.7 who has entered appearance by filing a Caveat. 2. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021 passed by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar vide Memo No.RWD-11021/1/2021/246, whereby, in supersession of the order, dated 13.10.2021, the Geographical area/jurisdiction in respect of Itanagar Division (functional) and Poma/Yupia Division has been specified as area falling under 13th Itanagar (ST) Assembly Constituency and area falling under 14th Doimukh (ST) Assembly Constituency respectively. 3. The petitioner who claims to be a President of all Papum-Poma Students Union states to have filed this Public Interest Litigation espousing the cause of 14th Doimukh (ST) Assembly Constituency, more particularly, for the people residing in the Balijan, Taraso, Basernello and Sandupata Cirlces under the 14th Doimukh (ST) Assembly Constituency. 4. The case of the petitioner, as projected, in this PIL is that after an elaborate exercise was undertaken by the competent authority, the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar had issued the order dated 12.10.2021 vide Memo No. SRWD-88/2019/185, whereby, the Geographical area/jurisdiction of the Itanagar Division, RWD (functional) and the Yupia (Poma) Division, RWD was specified. By the Geographical area/jurisdiction specified vide order dated 12.10.2021, the Itanagar Division, RWD (functional) comprised of areas of Itanagar, Balijan, Taraso and Basernello whereas the Geographical area/jurisdiction falling under the Yupia (Poma) Division comprised of Naharlagun, Karsingsa, Doimukh and Kimin. 5. On the request made by the respondent No. 7 by his U.O. note, dated 15.10.2021 annexed as Annexure-E to the petition, a decision was taken on 04.12.2021 in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of Minister, RWD, to change the Geographical areas/jurisdiction of Itanagar Division, RWD (functional) and the Yupia (Poma) Division, RWD in the manner indicated in Annexure-F to the petition. Against the proposed decision dated 04.12.2021 to alter the Geographical area/jurisdiction of Itanagar Division, RWD (functional) and Yupia (Poma) Division, RWD contrary to what was notified vide order, dated 12.10.2021, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Public Interest Litigation being PIL No. 20 (AP) 2021, which was disposed of by this Court, by an order, dated 22.12.2021, directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation that may be submitted by the petitioner against the proposed decision to alter the Geographical area/jurisdiction of Itanagar Division, RWD, (functional) as well as Yupia (Poma) Division, RWD. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner states to have submitted a representation dated 24.12.2021 to the Chief Minister of the State as well as to the Secretary, RWD, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, which is annexed as Annexure-H Colly to the petition. 6. Despite a detail and exhaustive representation submitted by the petitioner highlighting the grievance of the people residing within the jurisdiction of the 14th Doimukh (ST) Assembly Constituency against the alteration of Geographical area/jurisdiction of Itanagar Division, (functional) and Poma/Yupia Division, the respondent authorities issued the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021, whereby, the Geographical/jurisdiction of Itanagar Division (Functional) and Yupia/Poma Division have been specified to be an area under 13th Itanagar (ST) Assembly Constituency and area falling under 14th Doimukh (ST) Assembly Constituency respectively. The petitioner contends that the result of the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021 is that the Itanagar Division (functional) which had jurisdiction over Itanagar, Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas comprising of as many as 138 villages would now be left with only Geographical areas/jurisdiction of Itanagar and Naharlagun respectively with 46 villages. Except the Geographical areas of Itanagar and Naharlagun and some surrounding areas the rest of the Geographical areas would fall under Yupia/Poma Division thereby prejudicially affecting the interest of people of Balijan, Taraso and Basernello. The petitioner, therefore, contends that since the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021 altering the Geographical areas/jurisdiction of the Itanagar Division (functional) and Poma/Yupia Division in modification of the earlier order, dated 12.10.2021, which was issued after elaborate exercise undertaken by the competent authorities, the interest of the people residing in Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas have been prejudicially affected and the same is, therefore, not in the larger interest of the public residing in those areas. That apart, contends the petitioner, the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021, has been issued without taking into consideration the representation submitted by the petitioner on 24.12.2021 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State as well as to the Secretary, RWD, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 7. I have considered the contentions advanced by the petitioner and perused the materials made available on record. 8. Though, the petitioner, claiming to be a President of All Papum Poma Students’ Union states to be representing in the instant proceeding, the interest of the people residing in Balijan, Taraso and Basernello, there is no material available on record indicating any authorization as such from people residing in Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas. Also there is no pleading in the petition as to what is the total population of the people residing in Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas and whether the people of Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas are actually aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021, whereby the new Geographical area/jurisdiction of the Itanagar Division (functional) and Poma/Yupia Division have been specified; nor there is any material available on record on the basis of which this Court can reach a conclusion that the entire population of Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas are economically placed in such a manner that they have no adequate means/resources to approach this Court for ventilating their grievance(s), if any, against the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021, issued by the Secretary, RWD, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar creating/specifying a new Geographical area/jurisdiction of the Itanagar Division (functional) and Poma/Yupia Division. 9. In view of the above, this PIL filed by the petitioner claiming to be a president of All Papum Poma Students’ Union, it cannot be held as a cause brought before this Court on behalf of the people residing in Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas requiring any further examination by this Court. That apart, to alter the Geographical area/jurisdiction of any working division by the Government is a policy decision. That apart, to alter the Geographical area/jurisdiction of any working division by the Government is a policy decision. Though, a policy decision of the Government by itself may not be out of the purview of the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet, broadly speaking a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority-vs-Joint Action Committee Allottee of SFS Flats and Others; reported in (2008) 2 SCC 672 ; (a) If it is unconstitutional; (b) If it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulation; (c) If the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; (d) If the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy. In addition to the above, a policy decision is also subject to a judicial review as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Oil Extraction and Another-vs-State of M.P. and Others; reported in (1997) 7 SCC 592 : (1) If it is absolutely capricious; (2) If it is not informed by any reason whatsoever; (3) If it is arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby attending Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. 10. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the scope of judicial review in so far as the policy decision of the executive as indicated above, in the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021 is unconstitutional, dehors the provisions of any Act and the Regulations, that the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation and the impugned order, dated 29.12.20212 is contrary to statutory or a larger policy nor in the attending facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the pleadings made by the petitioner, it can be said that the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021 appears to be absolutely capricious and not informed by any reason whatsoever and is arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries, in the absence of the people of Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas demonstrating before this Court as to how and in what manner the impugned order is capricious not informed by any reason, arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby prejudicially affecting their interest. 11. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, I find no merit in this PIL and the same stands dismissed with a liberty granted to the people of Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas to seek appropriate remedy from the appropriate authority(ies) including this Court, if the people of the Balijan, Taraso and Basernello areas are at all actually aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 29.12.2021, issued by the Secretary, RWD, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar vide Memo No.RWD-11021/1/2021/246.