Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. - (1.) -
(2.) IN these bunch of writ petitions, the notifications issued by the State Government on 13th January, 2004 in the exercise of power under Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 21 of U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, are under challenge. By these notifications, nine districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh, namely : Hathras, Gautam Budh Nagar, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar, Sant Kabir Nagar, Auraiya, Chandauli, Kaushambi, Shrawasti and four Commissioner's Division, namely, Basti, Devipatan, Mirzapur, Saharanpur have been abolished. Since the language of all these notifications are practically similar, we feel it necessary to reproduce one of such notifications, which runs as under : NOTIFICATION "IN exercise of the powers under Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U. P. Act No. III of 1901) read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Act No. I of 1904) and in supersession of Government Notification No. 2869/1-5-97-322-97-Rajaswa-5, dated Lucknow September 18, 1997, issued in this behalf regarding creation of a new district by the name of Auraiya, the Governor is pleased to abolish the said district of Auraiya and to alter the limits of the existing district of Etawah by including areas of tehsils Auraiya and Bidhuna with effect from the date of publication of this notification in Gazette. The Governor is further pleased to direct that the jurisdiction of all legal proceedings commenced or pending on the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette in any district level court of the aforesaid abolished district shall now be vested in the District Court of Etawah district. By order Kapil Deo Pramukh Sachiv." We have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Sri Ravi Kant, Sri P. P. Srivastava, learned senior advocates, Sri W. H. Khan, S. P. Singh, Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Akhilesh Kalra, Sri Amit Khemka, learned advocates for the petitioners in different writ petitions. Sri S. P. Gupta, learned senior advocate and Sri Sudhir Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate General have been heard for State of Uttar Pradesh. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after examining the notifications issued, which are under challenge before us, the following questions that need to be decided in these bunch of writ petitions can be formulated as follows : (1) Whether the writ petitioners, who have filed these writ petitions challenging the notifications dated 13th January, 2004, abolishing nine districts and four divisions have any locus standi to maintain these writ petitions. (2) Whether the 'district' contemplated under Section 11 of the Act is different from the 'district' as defined in Part IX and IX-A of the Constitution of India. (3) Whether exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act by the State Government is purely executive or administrative in nature or it is purely legislative or not. (4) Whether it was mandatory on the part of the State Government to comply with the principle of natural justice by affording an opportunity to the residents of the districts while taking a decision to create or abolish the districts and divisions in the exercise of its power under Section 11 of the Act. (5) Whether consultation was necessary with the High Court before the State Government could exercise or issue the notifications under Section 11 of the Act abolishing the districts and divisions already created. (6) Whether the notification issued by the State Government under Section 11 of the Act was a policy decision of the State and if it is accepted to be a policy decision of the State, whether there can be a judicial review of such policy decision of the State Government while exercising its power under Section 11 of the Act. (7) (i) Whether the decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the policy decision taken by the State in exercise of its delegated legislative power is contrary to the purpose and object of the parent Statute or any other constitutional provision. (8) Whether the State Government while taking decision to abolish the districts, which were created similarly in the exercise of its power under Section 11 of the Act have taken into consideration the relevant factors, which were required to be taken for reaching to a decision for abolition of districts and divisions. (9) Whether there is hostile discrimination in the decision of the State Government in the matter of issuing a notification under Section 11 of the Act since the districts, namely : Kannauj, Bagpat, Mahoba, Balrampur and Bhadohi have not been abolished.
(3.) BEFORE we take up the aforesaid questions for our decision, it would be fair on our part to state the facts taken in the various writ petitions in which the notifications issued under Section 11 of the Act have been challenged. As noted hereinabove, separate writ petitions have been filed challenging the notifications abolishing nine districts and four divisions. With regard to some districts, there are more than one writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners. However, the pleading are complete in Writ Petition No. 2443 of 2004, Rajesh Kumar Sharma and others v. State of U. P. and others, which may be treated as leading petition. At this juncture, we may also keep on record that the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has referred the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government in Writ Petition No. 3019 of 2004, Barkhu Ram Verma v. State of U. P. and others, apart from the counter-affidavits filed in the leading petition and other writ petitions. However, the pleadings in all the writ petitions are almost similar except some small variation here and there. Counter-affidavits of the State Government are also on similar line in all these bunch of writ petitions. However, we may also keep on record that some additional facts have been given in Writ Petition No. 3019 of 2004, which would be referred to by us later. Therefore, for appreciating the controversies raised in these bunch of writ petitions, it would be sufficient to note the statements and averments made in Writ Petition No. 2443 of 2004.;