PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, an Association of the Advocates Practising at Jodhpur, has moved certain writ petitions. In these writ petitions, the petitioner Association has prayed that the Principal Seat/bench/circuit Benches of the various Tribunals be established at Jodhpur. THE prayer made in various writ petitions is delineated hereinbelow: S. No. Writ Petition Prayer made for establishment of 1. 1486/1998 Principal Seat of the Board of Revenue at Jodhpur. 2. 1167/1998 Rajasthan State Transport Appellate Tribunal 3. 1485/1998 Rajasthan Cooperative Tribunal 4. 1622/1998 Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal 5. 1238/1998 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(2.) FOR the purposes of deciding the controversy, the facts relating to the demand for establishment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Jodhpur are taken into consideration. According to the petitioner, it is deeply concerned about the balanced development of the State, particularly Western Rajasthan which had been the subject-matter of neglect by all the Governments of the State. The petitioner has averred that at the time of formation of the State of Rajasthan and reorganisation of the State, it was principally agreed that the Jaipur shall be the political capital and Jodhpur shall be the judicial capital. The claim of Jodhpur is stated on the basis that this is the second largest city of the State. It has been stated in the writ petition that initially understanding of keeping an unified High Court at Jodhpur was given effect to, but subsequently for certain vested and political reasons the High Court was bifurcated. Importance which Jodhpur deserved was not given to it. It has been contended that on account of continued neglect of this region, regional imbalance has resulted into dissatisfaction and frustration of the public. It has also resulted in the increased dissatisfaction in the border districts of the border State of the country. By continued neglect of the executive and in political circles there has virtually been no development in the city of Jodhpur and its adjoining areas. A circuit bench of the Board of Revenue has been constituted at Jodhpur but its seatings are only occasional. There being no regular bench of the Board of Revenue at Jodhpur great inconvenience has been caused to the litigants of western Rajasthan. The petitioner has contended that since the principal seat of the High Court is situated at Jodhpur. It being the judicial capital of the State the principal seat of the Board of Revenue should also be established at Jodhpur. Not establishing the Board of Revenue at Jodhpur is in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India (1 ). The case of the petitioner further is that having recognised Jodhpur to be the judicial capital of the State, as and when any court was created in the State, it should have been established at Jodhpur. But due to continued political and executive neglect the border districts like Jodhpur has been neglected. It has resulted in imbalanced development of the State. The petitioner's further case is that the respondent's action is arbitrary and unreasonable. Under the Constitution the State Government is obliged to provide remedy to the litigants at their door steps. By not constituting the Board or atleast a Bench of the Board of Revenue at Jodhpur, the State failed to discharge its constitutional obligation.
(3.) THE State of Rajasthan has submitted in its written reply that the case of the petitioner is based on wild allegations. THE State has contended that the petitioner Association being of the Advocates have made allegations of vested and political reasons. Such allegations are not supported by facts. Making of such allegations of imbalance development, according to the respondent, appear to be motivated politically. No discrimination has been made by the State as far as Western Rajasthan is concerned. THE development of a particular area depends upon geographical conditions, climate, availability of natural resources. THE State in its reply has given reasons for every tribunal's establishment at various places. As regards Board of Revenue it has been stated in its reply that the cases pending before the circuit bench of Jodhpur in the category of S. B. are 479 which does not justify, according to the respondents, the establishment of a bench at Jodhpur. A circuit bench is already visiting Jodhpur in every alternate month. Looking to the pendency the feasibility of incurring high financial expenditure was not considered fit because for establishing a bench infrastructure facilities are required to be created which require high financial expenditure. Rajasthan Revenue Bar Association, Ajmer had also joined issue with the petitioner. By the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court they were permitted to be heard before this Court. The Revenue Bar Association Ajmer in its reply has submitted that at the time of merger of Ajmer with the State of Rajasthan, the Government of India appointed a Committee. That Committee recommended the establishment of the Board of Revenue at Ajmer. The distance of Ajmer from various places is almost such that it would make no difference location wise. It has been contended by the answering Bar Association that the circuit benches are being held as per the directions of the Chairman of the Board of Revenue. According to the answering Bar Association the Board of Revenue is not a Tribunal constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution but it is the highest revenue court in the State. According to the answering Bar Association the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar (supra) is not applicable in the present case, firstly because the Board is not a Tribunal constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution and secondly because the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sampath Kumar (supra) are based on the concession given by the Attorney General. In any case, the circuit bench is being held at Jodhpur and it is the discretion of the Chairman of the Board of Revenue to regulate the functioning of the Board of Revenue and looking to the work of the Court the benches are assigned the work. ;