JUDGMENT : Rabindranath Samanta, J. 1. The writ petitions being interrelated to each other were heard together and since a common judgment will govern all the writ petitions I proceed to pen the judgment accordingly. 2. The petitioners by preferring the writ petitions challenge the legality and constitutional validity of the amended sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4(A) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 (in short A & N. Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968) published vide notification dated 17.01.2018 by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration and pray for directions upon the respondents authorities to dispose of the applications made by them for diversion of some tracts of land of them to commercial use to set up an eco-friendly tourism resort over the land. 3. The petitioners of W.P.A. 43 of 2019, in order to set up an eco-friendly tourism resort, made two applications – one dated 27.05.2010 and the another dated 22.02.2012 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman District for conversion of some tracts of its agricultural lands as particularized in the writ application to commercial use. Though both the two applications were registered as R.C. Case and hearing was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, but, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the respondent No. 6 herein, has kept both the two applications pending for years together. On the other hand, the writ petitioner of W.P.A 56 of 2019, for the aforesaid purpose, made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman District at Port Blair on 27.01.2016 seeking conversion of some tracts of his paddy, house site and hilly land to commercial use. Since the application filed by the petitioner was not taken up by the authority concerned for disposal, he by submitting an another application dated 27.11.2016 and ventilating his grievances sought for relief from the authority concerned. But, the application made by him is still pending. The writ petitioner of W.P.A 57 of 2019, also in order to construct an eco-friendly resort, made application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, North & Middle Andaman District on 27.01.2016 seeking conversion of some tracts of his paddy land, house site and hilly land to commercial use. The application made by the petitioner has not yet been disposed of. The writ petitioner of W.P.A 57 of 2019, also in order to construct an eco-friendly resort, made application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, North & Middle Andaman District on 27.01.2016 seeking conversion of some tracts of his paddy land, house site and hilly land to commercial use. The application made by the petitioner has not yet been disposed of. The writ petitioners of W.P.A. 6016 of 2020, for the similar purpose, made application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, North & Middle Andaman District on 5th February, 2016 seeking conversion of its some tracts of land of agricultural and household nature to commercial use. But, the application made by it is still pending. The writ petitioners of W.P.A 6019 of 2020, also to set up an eco-friendly tourism resort, made application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, North & Middle Andaman District on 16th June, 2016 for conversion of its a tract of agricultural land to commercial use. The application made by the petitioners has also not yet been disposed of by the authority concerned. The writ petitioners of W.P.A 187 of 2021, also for the aforesaid purpose i.e. to set up an eco-friendly tourism resort, made an application on 5th February, 2016 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, North & Middle Andaman District for conversion of its a tract of land as particularized in the application to commercial use. But, this application as made by the petitioners is still pending. 4. The writ petitioners state that they have come to learn that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, declined to pass any order of conversion of their lands to commercial use on the plea that he forwarded the matters to the land use committee for consideration. The petitioners assert that the amended sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 which came into force on 17th January, 2018 cannot have any manner of application to the applications filed by them seeking diversion of lands, neither the previous notification dated 26th July, 2017 amending the Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 published after the petitioners filed the aforesaid applications will have any manner of application to their applications. 5. 5. The common grounds upon which the petitioners challenge the legality and constitutional validity of the amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 published vide notification dated 17.01.2018 are as under: As per Section 210 (1) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (in short A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966), the Chief Commissioner, now the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, may, after previous publication, make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this regulation. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration while amended Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 vide notification dated 26.07.2017, the draft of the proposed amendment was previously published in the Andaman and Nicobar Gazette on 11.07.2016. After consideration of the objection and suggestion from the persons likely to be affected, the notification dated 26.07.2017 was published. But, before amendment of sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 vide notification dated 17.01.2018 the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration did not publish the draft amendment as required under Section 210(1) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. But, as per Section 40(2) of the parent statute i.e. the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, the Sub-Divisional Officer is the competent authority to divert one land to another purpose. The petitioners complain that by the amended provision of Rule 4(A) the power conferred upon the Sub-Divisional Officer has been taken away by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration. They aver that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration cannot alter any provision of the parent statute by a rule making power as a sub-ordinate legislation without any authority expressly conferred on it by the statute. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration has introduced a committee namely land use committee in Rule 4(A) by amending it beyond its legislative competence. The idea of creating a land use committee in the aforesaid Rule was not contemplated by the parent statute/regulation of 1966. They allege that the act on the part of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration is not only arbitrary, but whimsical. The idea of creating a land use committee in the aforesaid Rule was not contemplated by the parent statute/regulation of 1966. They allege that the act on the part of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration is not only arbitrary, but whimsical. As a result, the amendment as carried out by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration is not only ultra vires of the parent regulation, but it violates the golden doctrine of reasonableness as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the petitioners pray that the amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 be struck down and the concerned authority be directed to dispose of the applications made by them in terms of Section 40(2) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. 6. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition state that on 4th May, 2011 the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration constituted a committee under Rule 4(A) of A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 to safeguard against any unplanned development in Port Blair and other town of the territory to give due importance to the ecological and environmental issues. In such context, some guidelines as framed thereunder required to be fulfilled for disposal of applications seeking diversion of land. One of such guidelines stipulates that for the areas for which land use pattern has not been prescribed by master plan, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall be guided and advised by the land use committee for a plot measuring more than 500 Sq.mtrs. The answering respondents state that 94% of land in Andaman and Nicobar Islands is forest area. Of the remaining 6% of the geographical area, only 520 sq.kms is revenue land and out this land 187 sq.km land is being utilized for public utilities like roads, grazing land etc. Only 7.71 sq.km revenue land is available for future developmental projects. Also out of 520 sq. km of revenue land , 212.20 sq.km land (only 2.57% of the geographical area of the islands) is available as agricultural land. The petitioners in the writ applications have challenged the notification dated 17.01.2018 by which sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 were amended. km of revenue land , 212.20 sq.km land (only 2.57% of the geographical area of the islands) is available as agricultural land. The petitioners in the writ applications have challenged the notification dated 17.01.2018 by which sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 were amended. By the amended Rule 4(A) it has been provided that the Sub-Divisional Officer shall cause an enquiry to be made and shall unless he rejects the application for reason to be recorded in writing may divert the land upto 500 sq.mtrs or forward the application along with enquiry report and his own recommendation to the land use committee. By the amendment it has further been specified that all cases above 500 sq.mtr will be disposed of with the approval of the land use committee to be constituted by the administrator. The answering respondents submit that one Shri J.N. Choudhary by filing a writ petition being WP 673 of 2012 challenged sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 (A) of the Andaman and Nicobar Island Land Revenue and Land Reforms Amendment Rules, 2011. The writ petition was disposed of by a Hon’ble Single Judge on 11th April, 2013 observing therein that the amendment of the rules is intervires of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. The judgment dated 11th April, 2013 was challenged before the Hon’ble Division Bench in FMA No. 020 of 2013. The Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of the learned Single Bench. The respondents submit that the principle laid down by the learned Single Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench shall be applicable to the writ applications on hand challenging sub-rules (2) & (3) of the aforesaid Rule 4(A). Disputing and denying the averments as made in the writ petitions and raising a plea that in order to protect the environmental or ecological balance the amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 should not be interfered with. The respondents also submit that the aforesaid amended provisions of Rule 4(A) are intervires of the parent regulation of 1966. On such grounds, the answering respondents seek dismissal of the writ applications. 7. The respondents also submit that the aforesaid amended provisions of Rule 4(A) are intervires of the parent regulation of 1966. On such grounds, the answering respondents seek dismissal of the writ applications. 7. The writ petitioners Smartspace Infrastrutucre Private Ltd and others in their supplementary affidavit state that the judgments in J.N. Choudhary have no nexus with the present writ petitions or the issues involved therein. The notifications under challenge in J.N. Choudhary case were different and issues were also different. The notification dated 17.01.2018 was issued after the judgments were passed in J.N. Choudhary case. So, the notification under challenge in the present writ petitions is not covered by the judgments in J.N. Choudhary case. It may be noted here that after the aforesaid judgments were passed, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration by a notification dated 26th July, 2017 further amended sub clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 and in that regard a press note dated 1st August, 2017 was published. One Girish Arora and Others by filing a writ petition being WP 356 of 2017 challenged the notification dated 19th April, 2011, the guidelines dated 4th May, 2011, the second amendment dated July 26, 2017 and one press note dated August 1, 2017 published by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. A learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition holding therein that the judgments in J.N. Choudhary’s case cover the aforesaid writ petition. Challenging the Order of the learned Single Bench the writ petitioners filed an appeal being M.A 048 of 2018. The Hon’ble Division Bench by Order dated 8th February, 2019 has observed that the writ petition survives in respect of the notifications dated 26th July, 2017 and the press note dated 1st August, 2017. These writ petitioners by giving details of diversion/conversion of agricultural lands to commercial use state that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration in violation of the statutory provisions converted huge tracts of land either of agricultural or other purpose to commercial purpose in favour of large real estate players ignoring the local entrepreneurs and small businessmen. By such illegal act or action on the part of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration they have been grossly discriminated. 8. By such illegal act or action on the part of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration they have been grossly discriminated. 8. Learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners submit that by Section 40(2) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 power has been delegated only to the Sub-Divisional Officer to divert a land assessed for use for one purpose to any other purpose. By amendment of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 vide notification dated 19th April, 2011 power of the Sub-Divisional Officer to divert any land to other purpose was not taken away. By that amendment the Sub-Divisional Officer before passing the order of diversion or conversion might take advice of the land use committee constituted under the amended provision. But, the amendment under notification dated 17.01.2018 which is under challenge has taken away the delegated power of the Sub-Divisional Officer under the statute which was not contemplated in the parent statute. Learned Counsels argue that since the notification dated 19.04.2011 has no nexus with the notification dated 17.01.2018, the judgments in J.N. Choudhary case do not apply to the present writ petitions, nor the decision in J.N. Chaudhury operates as Res Judicata in respect of the present writ petitions. Learned Counsels further argue that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration in the guise of rule making power has infact transgressed the power delegated by Section 40 (2) of the parent regulation of 1966 and accordingly the amendment of the aforesaid rules are ultra vires of the parent statute. Learned Counsels point out that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration issued the impugned notification amending sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4 (A) without publishing the draft of the proposed amendment previously as required under Section 210 of the regulation of 1966 and thereby the amendment is illegal. Learned Counsels point out that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration issued the impugned notification amending sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4 (A) without publishing the draft of the proposed amendment previously as required under Section 210 of the regulation of 1966 and thereby the amendment is illegal. In support of their contention learned counsels have cited the following decisions: i) Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Others -Vs- State of H.P. and Others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 40 ii) Kerala Samsthana Chethu ThozhilAli Union -Vs- State of Kerala and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 327 iii) The Municipal Corporation Bhopal, M.P. -Vs- Misbahul Hasan and Others reported in (1972) 1 SCC 696 iv) Lok Prahari through its General Secretary -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2018) 6 SCC 1 v) Bhanu Kumar Jain –Vs- Archana Kumar and another reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787 9. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the decision as rendered by this Court in J.N. Choudhary case operates as Res Judicata in respect of the writ petitions since the amendment which was under challenge in J.N. Choudhary case and the amendment under challenge of the writ petitions relate to the amendment of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968. Learned Counsel further submits that 94% of the land in Andaman and Nicobar Islands is forest area. Out of the land only 2.57% of the land is available as agricultural land. Learned Counsel points out that to safeguard against unplanned development in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and to balance ecological and environmental conditions of the islands the amendments of Rule 4(A) were carried out constituting land use committee and prescribing guidelines thereunder. Citing a decision in the case of MC Mehta-Vs- Kamal Nath and Others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 388 learned counsel argues that in view of the doctrine of public trust and to protect the ecosystem, the amendments as carried out by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration are warranted by law. Referring to an another decision in the case of The Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan -Vs- M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd and Ors reported in (1997) 1 SCC 875 learned counsel argues that a technical defect in not publishing draft before carrying out the amendment should not vitiate the legality of the amendment. 10. Referring to an another decision in the case of The Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan -Vs- M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd and Ors reported in (1997) 1 SCC 875 learned counsel argues that a technical defect in not publishing draft before carrying out the amendment should not vitiate the legality of the amendment. 10. The A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 was made by the Hon’ble President in exercise of power under Article 240 of the Constitution of India. It is trite to say that in terms of Article 240(2) of the Constitution the regulation made by the Hon’ble President shall have the same force and effect as an act of Parliament which applies to a Union Territory. Section 210 of the Regulation of 1966 provides that the Chief Commissioner, now the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, may, after previous publication, make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this regulation. In exercise of the power under Section 210, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration has framed the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968. 11. In such context, it will be apposite to refer to Section 40(2) of the aforesaid Regulation of 1966. Section 40(2) reads as under: “No land assessed for use for any one purpose shall be diverted to any other purpose without the previous permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer”. This provision clearly shows that the Sub-Divisional Officer is the competent authority who may divert a land assessed for use for one purpose to any other purpose. The amendment of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4(A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 which was published vide notification dated 19th April, 2011 and which was challenged in J.N.Choudhury’s case may be reproduced as under: “The Sub-Divisional Officer shall in deciding such application in exercise of powers under section 40 (2) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, be guided by the approved land use prescribed in the Master Plan notified under Andaman and Nicobar Islands Town and Country Planning Regulation, 1994. Where land use has not been prescribed by a Master Plan the Sub-Divisional Officer may seek the advice of a Land Use Committee to be constituted by Administrator, to whom such applications will be referred subject to following provisos:- “Provided that change of land use shall not be permissible for land held under non occupancy tenancy or grant beyond the limit of Port Blair Municipal Council”; and “Provided further that if a group of people purchase any agriculture land for house sites jointly and later from housing Co-operative Society, each of such purchaser shall be treated as single tenant of his share on such holding and his case shall be considered for diversion of such share of land into house site limited to 500 Sq. mtrs treating him as an individual tenant within the meaning of Sub-Section (29) of Section 2 of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966.” 12. The vires of the aforesaid amended Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4(A) were challenged in Writ Petition No. 673 of 2012 (J.N. Choudhary -Vs- Lietuant Governor & Others). The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 11th April, 2013 dismissed the writ petition holding therein that amended sub-rule (2) of Rule 4(A) are not ultra vires of Section 40 (2) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. The petitioner carried the matter to the Hon’ble Division Bench by filing a mandamus appeal being F.M.A 020 of 2013. The Hon’ble Division Bench by Order dated January 28, 2014 dismissed the mandamus appeal and upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench. However, the amendment of sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the aforesaid rules which are under challenge in the instant writ petitions inter alia reads as under: “ I. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall cause an enquiry to be made and shall, unless he rejects the application for reasons to be recorded in writing may divert the land upto 500 Sq.mtrs or forward the application alongwith enquiry report and his own recommendation to the Land Use Committee. II. All cases above 500 Sq. mtrs with the approval of the Land Use Committee to be constituted by the Administrator. II. All cases above 500 Sq. mtrs with the approval of the Land Use Committee to be constituted by the Administrator. The composition of the Committee shall be : (a) Chief Secretary Chairman (b) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Member (c) Principal Secretary/Secretary (Revenue) Member (d) Secretary (Tourism) Member (e) Secretary (UD) Member (f) Deputy Commissioner of area concerned Member (g) Country & Town Planner Member (h) Deputy Secretary (Rev.) Member Further, the diversion will be subjected to the following conditions: a. Wherever the Master Plan is notified under Andaman & Nicobar Islands Town and Country Planning Regulation, 1994, the land diversion shall be guided by the approved land use prescribed therein. b. The tenant should compulsory develop the land/project in full shape, as per the Detailed project report (DPR) submitted at the time of applying for diversion within a period of 03 years from the date of diversion. If the applicant fails to do so, then penalty (as notified separately for different area of the Islands by the Administration) shall be imposed by the SDO immediately on the date of lapse of window period and recorded as encumbrance in the land records (ROR) till the tenant clears his dues. The penalty will increase on year to year basis, by 100%. Provided that change of land use shall not be permissible for land held under non-occupancy tenancy or under grant beyond the limit of Port Blair Municipal Council;” 13. The amended provision as excerpted above clearly demonstrates that Sub-Divisional Officer may divert the land upto 500 sq.mtrs or forward the application along with enquiry report and his own recommendation to the land use committee. All cases above 500 sq.mtrs with the approval of the land use committee to be constituted by the Administrator. As quoted above, Section 40 (2) of the Regulation of 1966 mandates that the Sub-Divisional Officer is the delegated authority who can divert a land used for one purpose to any other purpose. In nowhere in the regulation of 1966 which is termed as an Act passed by a Legislature there is any provision that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration may amend any of the Sections of the Regulation according to Public or Administrative needs. In nowhere in the regulation of 1966 which is termed as an Act passed by a Legislature there is any provision that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration may amend any of the Sections of the Regulation according to Public or Administrative needs. Only Section 210 of the Regulation confers power upon the Chief Commissioner, now the Lieutenant Governor to make rules after previous publication for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the regulation. It is discerned from this provision that the Andaman and Nicobar Island Administration is armed with authority to make rules to implement the provisions of the regulation. A rule making authority under a statute dehors any power to amend the parent statute, cannot affect or alter any of the provisions of the statute. 14. In the decision in the case of Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Others -Vs- State of H.P. and Others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 40 the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 14 has held that a delegated power to legislate by making rules for carrying out the purposes of the act is a general delegation without laying down any guidelines; it cannot be so exercised as to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities not contemplated by the provisions of the Act itself. In the decision in the case of Kerala Samsthana Chethu ThozhilAli Union -Vs- State of Kerala and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 327 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraphs 17, 26 and 36 as under : “17. A rule is not only required to be made in conformity with the provisions of the Act whereunder it is made, but the same must be in conformity with the provisions of any other Act, as a Subordinate legislation cannot be violative of any plenary legislation made by Parliament or the State Legislature. 26. Its power, therefore, was to make rules only for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of the Act and not dehors the same. In other words, rules cannot be framed in matters that are not contemplated under the Act. 36. The law that has, thus, been laid down is that if by a notification the Act itself stands affected the notification may be struck down.” 15. In other words, rules cannot be framed in matters that are not contemplated under the Act. 36. The law that has, thus, been laid down is that if by a notification the Act itself stands affected the notification may be struck down.” 15. Therefore, in view of the legal principles as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions (supra), the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration by the amendment under challenge has taken away the statutory power of the Sub-Divisional Officer to divert land transgressing his authority as delegated under Section 40 (2) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. 16. On the other hand, Section 28(b) of the Regulation of 1966 provides that if any order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, whether or not invested with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner, appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner. As contemplated by the legislation of 1966, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer diverting any land from one purpose to another shall be appealable to the Deputy Commissioner only. By the amendment under challenge the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration by diluting the statutory provisions under Section 40 (2) and Section 28(b), has created two forum of appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer – one before the Deputy Commissioner and the another before the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor. That being so, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration has exceeded its authority not delegated by the parent statute. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of Lok Prahari through its General Secretary -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2018) 6 SCC 1 at paragraph 32 has propounded as under: “32. The more dynamic version came two decades later in E.P. Royappa, (1974) 4 SCC 3 wherein Bhagwati, J. expanded the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the following terms: (SCCp. 38, para 85) “85….. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. 38, para 85) “85….. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to malafide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Malafide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16.” 18. What I feel, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration in colorable exercise of power not vested in it by the parent statute made the aforesaid amendment whimsically and arbitrarily. That being so, its colorable exercise of power smacking of arbitrariness, whims and caprice infringes the golden doctrine of reasonableness or equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. According to Section 210 of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 the Chief Commissioner, now the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor may make rules to carry into the effect of the provisions of the aforesaid statute after previous publication. Admittedly, while the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration published the notification dated 19.04.2011 to amend Rule 4(A) of the Rules of 1968 it published the draft of the proposed amendment beforehand. Similarly, while the administration further amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the Rules of 1968, it also made prior publication of the draft of the proposed amendment. Similarly, while the administration further amended sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) of the Rules of 1968, it also made prior publication of the draft of the proposed amendment. Undisputedly, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration published the notification dated 17.01.2018 relating to amendment of sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 4(A) without any prior publication of the draft of the proposed amendment. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of The Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, M.P. –Vs- Misbahul Hasan and Others reported in (1972) 1 SCC 696 has propounded that if any rule is amended without previous publication which is mandatory as per the existing law, the rules so made by the authority concerned is vitiated with illegality. True, in the decision in the case of The Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan-Vs- M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd and Others reported in (1977) 1 SCC 875 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that non-publication of a rule beforehand is a technical defect and it should not affect the validity of the rule. Section 210(1) of the Regulation of 1966 compulsorily mandates the Andaman and Nicobar Administration that before making any rule it should publish the draft of the rules beforehand. In such legal scenario and in view of the decision in the case of The Municipal Corporation, Bhopal (supra) I think that the amendment as made by the administration without previous publication is vitiated with illegality. While the Andaman and Nicobar Islands made the previous amendments with prior publication, its plea that the amendment should not be vitiated due to technical defect in not making the previous publication is not acceptable. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of M.C. Mehta –Vs- Kamal Nath and Others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 388 has held that public trust doctrine is a part of Indian law and it extends to natural resources such as rivers, forests, seashores, air etc. for the purpose of protecting the eco-system. In view of this, the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that lease granted by a State Government of Riparian Forest land for commercial purpose to a private company having a motel located at the bank of river beas is in breach of public trust. 22. for the purpose of protecting the eco-system. In view of this, the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that lease granted by a State Government of Riparian Forest land for commercial purpose to a private company having a motel located at the bank of river beas is in breach of public trust. 22. As discussed above, the parent statute of 1966 does not provide any provision restricting the authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer to divert or convert any land from one purpose to another. While the express provision of a statute requires the action of the concerned authority in a particular direction, the authority is bound to act accordingly. Therefore, in my view, the decision in MC Mehta (supra) is not applicable to the writ petitions on hand. 23. Admittedly, the applications made by the writ petitioners before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer have not yet been disposed of raising a plea that the applications have been referred to land use committee. It is contended by the petitioners that though their applications are pending since long, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Authority in many other cases allowed the applications of other persons and thereby the writ petitioners have been discriminated. The writ petitioners Smartspace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and others in their supplementary affidavit state that they have collected documents to show that the concerned SDO (and not the land use committee) has converted lands measuring more than 500 Sq.mtrs after 2011 and Andaman and Nicobar Administration never referred those cases to Land Use Committee for the purpose of diversion. In such context they cite examples at paragraphs 18 to 22 which are as under: “By an Order dated June 29, 2012 (after coming into effect of the notification dated April 19, 2011), the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, South Andaman, converted 1,500 sqaure metres of land for running eco-tourism resort at Havelock Island. A copy of the said order dated June 29, 2012 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “V”. a. On September 26, 2011, 500 sqaure metres of land at Radhanagar, Havelock Village bearing Survey No. 81/1, out of 0.4350 hectares, was converted from agricultural land to commercial purpose by the Sub Divisional Officer, South Andaman, in favour of one Sr. G. Bhaskar. A Copy of the conversion Order dated September 26, 201 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “W”. G. Bhaskar. A Copy of the conversion Order dated September 26, 201 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “W”. b. I say that the said Sri. G. Bhaskar submitted another application for diversion of remaining land measuring about 0.3850 hectares of agricultural land to commercial purpose but the same was withheld. c. In the premises the said Sri G. Bhaskar filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 345 of 2013 and after hearing the parties, this Hon’ble Court, by an order dated November 26, 2013 disposed of the writ petition directing the authority to do the needful in terms of the prayer of the petitioner therein by six months from that date. There was not whisper of any purported Land Use Committee in the aid order. d. In spite of the said order dated November 26, 2013 the Andaman Administration failed to act in accordance with the said order. Hence, a contempt application was filed. On December 12,2014, when the matter was called on for hearing, the respondents pleaded that they will pass necessary orders within eight weeks and hence the contempt case was adjourned. Copies of the orders dated November 26, 2013, December 12, 2014 are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “X”. e. On March 19, 2015 the said land measuring 0.3850 hectares was converted from agricultural to commercial purpose by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer. A copy of the conversion Order March 19, 2015 is annexed hereto and collectively marked as Annexure “Y”. f. In the said conversion order there is no whisper of any approval by any alleged Land Use Committee. The land use Committee is being used as a cloak to withhold conversion of local and small entrepreneurs and to favour bid real estate players. 19. The petitioners have recently come to know that the concerned Tehsildar had registered a case in respect of the said land being R.C. Case No. 146/2010/SDO. The petitioners call upon the respondents to produce the records, pertaining to this land, at the time of hearing of this writ petition. 20. The petitioners have also come to know very recently that the concerned Tehsildar, by his report dated January 10, 2012, upon field survey, has recommended the case for conversion of the said land of the petitioners. This fact was stated in the writ petition but the order was not available. 20. The petitioners have also come to know very recently that the concerned Tehsildar, by his report dated January 10, 2012, upon field survey, has recommended the case for conversion of the said land of the petitioners. This fact was stated in the writ petition but the order was not available. However, the petitioners have since been able to obtain a copy of a report by the concerned Tehsildar recommending conversion and opining that the petitioners fulfill all the criteria. After such recommendation upon field survey, the SDO had no other formalities to be observed and merely a formal order by the concerned Sub-Divisional officer was to be passed granting conversion of the said land. A copy of the report dated January 10, 2012 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “Z”. 21. The respondents wrongfully and with malafide intent withheld the conversion order is respect of the said application dated May 27, 2010 of the petitioners. 22. Subsequently, it transpired that to give preference to big real estate players, the applications for conversion filed by local and other entrepreneurs were kept pending by way of hostile discrimination and for extraneous reasons. Furthermore, the records available under Right to Information Act, which are morefully stated hereunder, prove such hostile discrimination and suspicious circumstances.” 24.Besides, the writ petitioners Smartspace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and others in the writ application being W.P.A 43 of 2019 by annexing copies of the orders dated 29.06.2012 and 31.07.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer inform the Court that in the year 2012 the Sub-Divisional Officer alone diverted lands exceeding 500 sq. mtrs from one purpose to another without any advice or approval from any land use committee. 25.As I find, the averments in the aforesaid supplementary affidavit are supported by documents. These facts and the copies of the orders dated 29.06.2012 and 31.07.2012 of the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer clearly demonstrate that even after the land use committee was constituted the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of his power under Section 40(2) of the Regulation of 1966 converted the lands of some other persons from one purpose to another on disposing of the applications pending before him. 26.The affidavits-in-opposition filed by the answering respondents do not exhibit either substantial averments or documents to controvert the factual aspects as disclosed above in the writ application as well as in the supplementary affidavit. 27. 26.The affidavits-in-opposition filed by the answering respondents do not exhibit either substantial averments or documents to controvert the factual aspects as disclosed above in the writ application as well as in the supplementary affidavit. 27. What I feel, the aforesaid actions on the part of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration nakedly demonstrate the discrimination committed by it towards the writ petitioners by not disposing of their applications seeking diversion of land. Though the writ petitioners and those who have been favoured by the administration are circumstanced similarly, the petitioners have been treated unequally and thereby the actions of the Administration are violative of the golden rule of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. 28. As indicated above, the notification dated 19.04. 2011 by which sub-rule (2) of Rule 4(A) was amended is quite distinct from the notification dated 17.01.2018 by which sub-clauses (2) and (3 of Rule 4(A) was amended. As stated above, the amendment as carried out vide notification dated 19.04.2011 did not take away the authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer to divert a land from one purpose to another. The amendment only armed him to seek advice from the land use committee to be constituted by the Administrator. In the absence of any express provision in the amended provision, the Sub-Divisional Officer while disposing of an application seeking diversion of land might take advice of the land use committee or not. But, by the subsequent amendments of sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule4(A) vide the notification dated 17.01.2018, the power of the Sub-Divisional Officer has been severely curtailed to dispose of applications seeking conversion of land measuring more than 500 sq.mtrs . Therefore, the nature of the aforesaid two amendments differs pole apart. 29. Relating to principles of res judicata learned counsels appearing for the petitioners refer to a decision in the decision in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain –Vs- Archana Kumar and another reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787 . At paragraphs 18 and 19 the Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded as under: “18. It is now well settled that principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings. (See Satyadhyan Ghosal V. Deoranjin Debi and Prahlad Singh V. Col. Sukhdev Singh.) 19. At paragraphs 18 and 19 the Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded as under: “18. It is now well settled that principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings. (See Satyadhyan Ghosal V. Deoranjin Debi and Prahlad Singh V. Col. Sukhdev Singh.) 19. In Y.B. Patil it was held : (SCC p. 68, para 4) “4….It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding.” 30.Since the factual matrix or cause of action of J.N. Choudhary’s case challenging the amended provision of Rule 4(A) vide notification dated 19.04.2011 and the factual matrix or cause of action of the present writ petitions challenging the amended provision of Rule 4(A) vide notification dated 17.01.2018 are quite distinct from each other, the judgments in J.N.Choudhary’s case do not operate as res judicata in respect of the present writ petitions. Therefore, the argument as advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the present writ petitions are barred by principles of Res Judicata is not acceptable. 31.As discussed above, this Court has no hesitation in mind to hold that the amended sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 4 (A) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 published vide notification dated 17.01.2018 are not only ultra vires of Section 40(2) of the A & N Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, but the same smacking of arbitrariness violate the golden doctrine of reasonableness or equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 32.The actions on the part of the respondents to allow similar applications seeking diversion of land by some real estate players and keep the applications of the petitioners pending since long is highly discriminatory and such actions strike at the root of the doctrine of equality guaranteed by the Constitution to a citizen of India. 33.In view of the above, the aforesaid writ petitions merit success and accordingly the writ petitions are allowed on contest. 33.In view of the above, the aforesaid writ petitions merit success and accordingly the writ petitions are allowed on contest. 34.The amended sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 4(A) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1968 published vide notification dated 17.01.2018 are struck down as ultra vires of Section 40 (2) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 as well as of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Simultaneously, the notification dated 17.01.2018 published by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration is quashed. 35.The concerned Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to dispose of the respective applications of the writ petitioners in accordance with Section 40(2) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and the relevant rule framed thereunder within six weeks from date. With the aforesaid directions the writ petitions stand disposed of. Connected application, if any, also stands disposed of. 36.No order as to costs. 37.Urgent Photostat/website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. 38.Let the case records of the writ petitions along with the judgment be transmitted to the Circuit Bench of this High Court at Port Blair immediately.