Holding

Courts cannot interfere with the executive's policy decision to create a district unless a fundamental right is infringed, rendering the High Court's interference improper.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged a High Court order that had interfered with the executive's decision to create a new district, Baghpat, under a notification issued pursuant to Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1908. The High Court had disposed of the writ petition by directing a reconsideration of the district's creation, referencing earlier judgments. The State argued that such creation is a policy decision and that the High Court should not have intervened. The Supreme Court held that policy decisions of the executive are subject to extremely limited judicial review and may be interfered with only if a fundamental right is infringed; otherwise courts must not substitute their judgment for that of the executive. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the High Court's interference was improper.

Issues considered

Whether the creation of a new district is a policy decision beyond the scope of judicial review.
Whether the High Court could validly direct reconsideration of the executive's decision to create the district.
Whether any infringement of fundamental rights arose from the creation of the district that would justify judicial intervention.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901s. 11

Subjects

judicial reviewpolicy decisiondistrict creationfundamental rightsseparation of powersadministrative lawUttar Pradesh

Judgment

I I

[2008] 4 S.C.R. 610

~-
A STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
v
CHAUDHARI RAN BEER SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1272 of 2002)
MARCH 10, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Judicial Interference - With policy decision - Scope of-
c Held: Judicial interference in such matters is extremely limited
- Such matters if not infringing fundamental rights, not to be
interfered with even if a second view is possible.

Creation of a new District was challenged in a writ
petition before the High Court. High Court on the basis of
D order passed in writ petition challenging creation of
another District, (wherein reconsideration of the creation
was ordered) disposed of the writ petition. Thereafter,
Cabinet of the State Government affirmed the order of
creation.
E In appeal to this Court, State contended that High
Court should not have interfered with a policy decision.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: In matters of policy decisions, the scope of
F interference is extremely limited. The policy decision must
..
be left to the Government, as it aldtle c·an decide which "
policy should be adopted after consid~ring all relevant
aspects from different angles. In matte,r of policy decisions
or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as
G the infringement of fundamental right is not shown, Courts
will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not
and should not substitute its own judgment for the . .._
judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing
the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court·
H 610
.. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. CHAUDHARI RAN BEER 611
SINGH & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)

.· cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from A
that of the Government: [Para 12] [615-B,~, DJ
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 1272
of2002
From the final Judgment and Ord~r dated 12:4.1999 of B
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 9085of1999. · • . · ·
. '
Shail Kumar Dwivedi,A.A.G., Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, Vandana
and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Appellants.
"' ' ·, c
· Jitendra Mohan Sha.rma and Vinay Garg for the
Respondents.
·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to D
. the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court. The controversy related to creation of a new district i.e.
Baghpat in the State of Uttar Pradesh ..
2: By the impugned order the High Court disposed of the
writ petition as follows: '· · · E
"In view of the order passed·in W.P. No. 5004 of 1999
Mohd. Tariq v. State of U.P. no further order is required in
this petition. Petition is disposed of."
. 3. Since the'ordefis practically unreason~d!ilis:iiecessary F
to take riote of'tH6'factual background. Ori T5.9~1997 a
Notification was issued under Section 11 of•the'U~P. Land
Revenue Act,1901 (in.short the 'Act') read with. Sectiqn 21 of
the Uttar Prades~ -General Clauses Act, 190,f(il1 short the
'General ClausesAct').The Governor directed creation of a new G
: District by the n.ame;qf Baghpat with effect from the ,date of
publication of th~}j~\1fieation. A Writ Petition NQ ..9085 of 1999
was filed challe,Qglng the aforesaid Notification; .Tpere were
essentially two prayers .i.e. one was to quash t.hr 1!'!p\ification
dated 15.9.1997 anc! the other not to permit Baghpat District to H
.· .- , ~ . CS!'f! F;.;:iJ
I I

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A continue. A Writ Petition Civil Misc. No. 39756of1998 had been
filed wherein creation of a new District "Sant Kabir Nagar" wa
challenged in Ram Milan Sukla & Ors. By order dated 15.1.1999
a Division Bench of the High Court quashed the Notification
dated 9.11.1998 and directed a fresh consideration. Th1::
B operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"On the facts and cfrcumstances of the case, we allow this
petition, quash the order dated 9.11.1998 and direct the
State Government to reconsider the matter and decided
whether there was any good administrative and financial
C grounds to issue the notification dated 5.9.1997 for
creation of Sant Kabir district. If the State Government
again decides to continue Sant Kabir Nagar and other
districts created by the previous Government then it must
introduce a bill in the State Legislature for this purpose.
D Until and unless such a bill is introduced and passed the
notification dated 5.9.1997 shall remain in abeyance."
4. The matter was carried to this Court in SLP(C)No. CC
1384/1999 and by order dated 26.3.1999 this Court dismissed
E the S. L. P. noting as follows:
"Permission to file SLP is granted in Special Leave
Petition ......... (CC 1364/99).
Looking to the facts and circumstances as set out by the
High Court in the impugned judgment, no intervention is
F called for under Article 136. Hence the Special Leave
Petitions are dismissed."
5. In the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9085of1999 to which
the present dispute relates, counter affidavit was filed on
G 16.3.1999. Another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5004 of 1999
was filed before the High Court challenging the creation of
Kausambi District. The said writ petition was disposed of by
order dated 12.4.1999 with reference to the order passed by -;-
the High Court in Ram Milan Shukla's case referred to above.
H 6. Learned Advocate General of the State submitted
I I
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. CHAUDHARI RAN BEER 613
SINGH & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

~
before the High Court when the writ petition was being heard A
~ thatthe Government will comply with the orders of the High Court
made in Ram Milan Shukla's case. It was further stated that
Budgetary provisions have been made in respect of certain
districts and the budget has been presented and passed. It was
further stated that certain districts created by the previous B
Government were being retained while others were not.
7. The Division Bench noted that the facts of the said case
were covered by the Division Bench's judgment in Ram Milan's
case decided on 15.1.1999. However the High Court made
.:ertain observations which we feel were not necessary to be c:
made while dealing with the writ petition. They related to the
District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police and other
officials of the District living at Allahabad and it was aiso noted
that similar was the position in the case of Sant Kabir Nagar 's
officials. These observations about where the officer should stay J
and similar other observations really had no relevance. Wl"en
the writ petition to which this case relates i.e. Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 9085of1999 was taken up, the High Court as noted
above disposed of the same with reference to Mohan Tariq's
case i.e. Writ Petition No. 5004 of 1999. It is relevant to note E
that on 7 .1.2000 the Cabinet of the State Government took the
following decisions:

"The Cabinet decision dated 7.1.2000 as contained in
the original letter dated 10.1.2000 of the Joint Secretary
..... (Confidential) issued on behalf of the Chief Secretary and
Cabinet Secretary states that ;
F

"Cabinet in its meeting dated 10.1.2000 after discussion
decided that new districts and Divisions created in the
year 1997 shall be continued as it is and with regard to
G
them further steps as necessary regarding placing of
Ordinance/Bill be taken."
R It appears that there was a contempt petition f::ed before
the High Court i.e. Contempt Petition No. 1449 of 1999 in
CMWP No. 39756/1998 which was disposed of 1nter-alia with H
\ I

614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A the following observations:

"In supplementary counter affidavit filed by Ajit Kumar
Shahu, Secretary, Revenue Department of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow, dated 13.3.2002, it has been stated that pursuant
to the judgment of this Court, the Cabinet had constituted
B a sub-Committee under the Chairmanship of Revenue
Minister regarding the consideration of utility, viability and
expenditure along with facilities of public in general, which
submitted a report and it was decided that the new Districts
and Commissionery constituted and establisheq in the
c year 1997 shall be retained and continued as it is. The
decision of the Cabinet dated 7 .1.2000 as circulated, is
also filed as Annexure SCA-I I to the supplementary counter
affidavit. It is also the supplementary counter affidavit. It is
also stated that in view of the decision of the Cabinet
D based on the report of the Sub-Committee, and passing
of the regular annual financial statements (Budget
appropriation Bill, the order dated 15.1.1999 is complied
with.

Thus in view of the averment made in the supplementary
E counter affidavit, the Court is not inclined to proceed any
further in the contempt proceedings. The notice earlier
issued is discharged and the contempt petition is
dismissed."

F 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. In matters ...,
of policy- decision like creation of a DistricUState, the High Court
should not have interfered and that too on wholly irrelevant
grounds. So far as Ram Milan's case is con~erned this Court
did not interfere because there was a direction for re-
G
consideration. The re-consideration has been done and the
decision of the Cabinet has been taken on 7.1.2000.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
creation of a district should not be done in a routine manner
H and the High Court has rightly taken note of several factors.
I }

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. CHAUDHARI RAN BEER 615
SINGH & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT. J ]

11. In Ram Milan's case the High Court had directed re- A
consideration which apparently has been done as is evident
from the Cabinet's decision.
12. Cabinet's decision was taken nearly eight years back
and appears to be operative. That being so there is no scope
for directing reconsideration as was done in Ram Milan's case, B
though learned counsel for the respondents prayed that such a
direction should be given. As rightly contended by learned
counsel for the State, in matters of policy decisions, the scope
of interference is extremely limited. The policy decision must
be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy C
should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from
different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of
discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of
fundamental right is not shown. Courts will have no occasion to
interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own D
judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In
assessing the propriety of a decision of the government the Court
cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of
the Government.
13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. E

K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.

..