- (1.) Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been heard together as the fate of the second writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 46428 of 2010 depends upon the result of the first writ petition i.e. 22757 of 2008. Therefore, firstly we take the first writ petition for consideration.
(2.) So far as first writ petition is concerned, Collectorate Bar Association, Etah through its President has filed this writ petition in the form of public interest litigation. According to the petitioner, on 15th April, 2008 the then Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh made a public announcement that henceforth Tehsil Kasganj will be a separate district in the name of Sri Kanshi Ram. Pursuant to the aforesaid public announcement, on 17th April, 2008 notification has been issued by the State Government creating a new district called as Kanshi Ram Nagar by carving out Tehsils Kasganj and Patiyali and Block Soron from District Etah. Challenging such notification dated 17th April, 2008 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and also sought for a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding any further towards bifurcation of District Etah pursuant to the impugned notification. The ground of challenge is that before issuance of notification by the State Government for creation of new revenue District Kanshi Ram Nagar necessary budget and infrastructure was not provided. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has relied upon the judgements (Ram Milan Shukla and others Vs. State of U.P. and othres, 1999 1 AWC 723 ) and (State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and another, 2008 5 SCC 550).
(3.) On 15th December, 2009 a Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order recording the submissions of the parties, as follows: "In this public interest litigation the Collectorate Bar Association, Etah has prayed for quashing the notification dated 17.4.2008 issued by the State Government for creation of revenue district Kanshi Ram Nagar on the grounds that the necessary budget and infrastructure was not provided before notifying the revenue district creating serious anomalies and difficulties for the residents of the district. The petitioner has relied upon Ram Milan Shukla Vs. State of U.P., 1999 1 AWC 723 and State of U.P. Vs. Choudhary Ranvir Singh, 2008 5 SCC 550 in support of their submissions. In the supplementary counter affidavit of Shri Anand Prakash Upadhyaya presently posted as Joint Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. it is stated that there is no violation of Art.204 and 205 of the Constitution of India. There was specific provisions in the budget 2008-09 relating to the establishment and other necessary expenses for the district. An amount of Rs.263.30 crores has been earmarked. For the essential expenditure towards newly created district the Board of Revenue, U.P. has sanctioned budget and total amount of Rs.4.07 crores has been earmarked for the year 2008-09. No amount was initially withdrawn from the contingency fund of the State. The other budgetary provisions have been given in para 7 of the counter affidavit. Shri H.M. Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the Kasganj Bar Association and Democratic Bar Association, Kasganj states that the new building of the district judiciary was inaugurated after Shri Aditya Nath Mittal was appointed as officer on special duty, Kanshi Ram Nagar by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court and has annexed various photograph of the building and the inauguration ceremony. The officers and staff have been appointed and that district judiciary functioning from new district with the officer on special duty, two Addl. Civil Judges and a Chief Judicial Magistrate, a Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge (JD). The petitioner insists that the necessary infrastructure has not been created. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police are still sitting in the office of Nagar Palika. There are no residence provided and that all the senior officers are still residing in Distt. Etah. The District Judge and officers are working in the hurriedly renovated and old court building without any proper accommodation. About 1 1/2 years has passed but there is no infrastructure and arrangement for the office and staff of the officers and employees. Shri Jafar Naiyer, learned Addl. Advocate General states that he will file an affidavit giving the entire status of the budget, number of officers, offices constructed and the residences and also inform the Court about the steps taken for acquiring the land and construction of building. List this case on 15.1.2010. We feel constrained to observe that if the State Government has not taken any effective steps for creating infrastructure and establishment of district office and Court rooms, suitable to the status and function of the office of the District Judge and other judicial officers so far, the Court may consider to stay the notification on the next date. A copy of the order be given to the Chief Standing Counsel.";