STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus CHAUDHARI RAN BEER SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 610 · Decided: 10-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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) 
B 
MARCH 10, 2008 
[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 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.