- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel. The petitioners allege that their lands have been acquired for constructing a dam and an irrigation canal.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned G. O. dated 3-9-1992 (Annexure-1 to the petition ). By the impugned G. O. the persons whose land were acquired on 22-7-1967 of thereafter are entitled to preference in allotment of the land belonging to the Irrigation Department for agriculture purpose. The petitioners' land admittedly was acquired in 1959-60 and hence they are not entitled to any preference under the said G. O. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cut of date 22-7-1967 is wholly arbitrary. We do not agree. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, 1990 (3) SCC 368, that choice of a date cannot be held to be arbitrary even if no good reason is forthcoming, unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical or wide off the reasonable mark. The same view was taken in Union of India v. Parmeswaran Match Works, AIR 1974 SC 2349, and in Union of India v. S. K. Jaiswal, 1994 (4) SCC 212.
(3.) IN our opinion, the judiciary must maintain restraint in such matters of fixing cut off dates and not encroach on executive or legislative functions, otherwise there is bound to be a reaction. By maintaining restraint it enhances its prestige and respect. The judiciary does not consist of administrative experts and hence it cannot claim expertise in such matters as fixing cut off dates. Hence we are not inclined to strike down the impugned G. O. on the ground that the cut off date is arbitrary. IN Tata Cullular v. Union of INdia, AIR 1996 SC 11. The Supreme Court observed that the modern trend is of restraint in interference with administrative decisions. Secondly it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned G. O. has been signed by the Principal Secretary, U. P. Government but it does not state that it has been issued on behalf of the Governor, and hence it violates Article 166 of the Constitution. We do not agree. In Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192 (vide para 35) it was observed by the Supreme Court: "when a civil servant takes a decision he does not do so as a delegate of his Minister. He does it on behalf of the Government. The officers are limbs of the Government and not its delegates. ";