LexJ.R. RAGHUPATHY, ETC. versus STATE OF A.P. & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D J.R. RAGHUPATHY, ETC. v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. ETC. JULY 28, 1988 [A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974-Whether loca- tion of Revenue Manda/ Headquarters under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of-Was amenable to Writ jurisdiction of High Court. I These appeals by Special Leave and a petition for Special leave arose out of different judgments of the High Court. The main issue involved was whether the location of Revenue Mandal Headquarters in the State of Andhra Pradesh under S. 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh District (Formation) Act, 1974, was a purely governmental function, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court by individuals ~d gram panchayats questioning the legality and propriety of the forma- tion of certain Revenue Mandals and location of certain Mandal Head- quarters notified i'n preliminary notification issued under sub-s. (5) of Section 3 of the Act. In some cases, the High Court declined to interfere E with the location of Manda! Headquarters, holding that the government was the best judge of the situation, or on the ground that there was a breach of guidelines it directed the Government to reconsider the ques- tion of location of the Manda! Headquarters. In some cases, the High Court quashed the final notification for location of the Mandal Head- quarters at a particular place, holding that there ·was a breach of F guidelines based on the system ofmarkioli and also on the ground that there were no reasons disclosed for deviating from the preliminary notification for location of the Manda! Headquarters at another place. Allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1987of1986 and all other appeals and Special Leave Petitions directed against the judg- G men ts of the High Court, whereby the High Court had interfered, with the location of the Manda! Headquarters, the Court, HELD: It was difficult to sustain the interference by the' High I • Court in some of cases with the location of the Manda! Headquarters 4' and the quashing of the impugned notiticati<in on the ground that the H Government had acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or 694 J.R. RAGHUPATHY v. STATE OF A.P. 695 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 developing the areas surrounded by it or that merely because a particular person who was an influential Member of Legislative Assembly belonging to the party in opposition had the right of representation but faile<! to avail of it. The location of Headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-s (5) of s. 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Col- lectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like Gram Panchayats aud the general public, keeping in view the relevant factors. Even assuming that any breach of the guidelines for the location of the Manda! Headquarters was justiciable, the utmost that the High Court could have done was to quash the impugned notification in a particular case and direct the Government to reconsider the question. There was no warrant for the High Court to have gone further and direct the shifting of the Manda! Headquarters at a particular place. (71IB-E] The guidelines are merely in the nature of instructions issued by the State Government to the Collectors regulating the manner in which they should formulate their proposals for formation of a Revenue Man• A B c D dal or for the location of its Headquarters keeping in view the broad guidelines laid down in Appendix I to the White Paper issued by the Government laying down the broad guidelines. The guidelines had no, E statutory force and they had also not been published in the Official Gazette. They were mere departmental instructions for the Collectors. The ultimate decision as .to the formation of a Revenue Manda! or location of its Headquarters was with the Government. It was for that reason that the Government issued preliminary notification under sub-s ( 5) of section 3 of the Act. Deviation from the guidelines in some of the F aspects was usually for reasons of administrative convenience keeping in view the purpose and object of the Act i.e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.