Policy Decisions In Form Of Circulars Bind Government Though Executive In Nature: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering a dispute arose in background of notification issued in exercise of the powers under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that any action taken in derogation of a policy, without amendment or valid justification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Court was considering an Appeal against an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court by which the order passed by the Single Judge was set aside. The Single Judge had quashed a notification by which two newly created revenue villages were named after the individuals who donated land.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe held, "The aforesaid circular is in the nature of a policy decision. Clause 4 of the circular has been incorporated with an object to maintain communal harmony. It is well settled in law that a policy decision though executive in nature binds the Government, and the Government cannot act contrary thereto, unless the policy is lawfully amended or withdrawn. Any action taken in derogation of such a policy, without amendment or valid justification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
The Appellant was represented Advocate-on-Record Manish K. Bishnoi, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Vivek Firoda.
Facts of the Case
The State Government, in exercise of the powers under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 had issued a notification. In the said notification, Amargarh and Sagatsar from Meghwalo Ki Dhani, Revenue Village Sohda, Patwar Mandal Sohda, District Barmer, were notified as separate Revenue Villages. Consequent thereto, the District Collector issued an order specifying the area and population of the newly constituted Revenue Villages.
Later, the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, issued directions for reorganization, re-demarcation and creation of the new Gram Panchayats and Panchayat Samitis, authorising the District Collectors to act under Sections 9, 10 and 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
In furtherance thereof, a Public Notice was issued inviting objections and an objection was submitted by villagers of Meghwalo ki Dhani, asserting that the names of new Revenue Villages, namely ‘Amargarh’ and ‘Sagatsar’ were derived from the names of individuals.
The Appellants approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition challenging the validity of the notification insofar as it related to the creation of Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar.
The Single Judge had held that the names of Revenue Villages were derived from the names of individuals, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh, who had also agreed to donate the land.
Counsel for the Appellants contended that the Division Bench in its impugned order erred in overlooking the fact that the names of Revenue Villages in question were clearly based on the names of individuals, in direct violation of circular issued by the State Government.
On the other hand, Counsel for the State argued that the statutory procedure prescribed for the creation of Revenue Villages had been followed and that the circular issued by the Government was merely directory.
Reasoning By Court
The Court ruled that any action taken in derogation of a policy, without amendment or valid justification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
"Admittedly, the names of the Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar, are derived from the names of the individuals, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh. The notification dated 31.12.2020 is, therefore, in contravention of Clause 4 of the Circular dated 20.08.2009. The State Government cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the policy framed by it, which binds it. Therefore, no legal sanctity can be attached to the impugned notification dated 31.12.2020, insofar as it pertains to Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar. The Division Bench failed to consider this material aspect and erred in limiting its consideration only to the applicability of earlier decisions in Moola Ram and Joga Ram (supra). In any case, the lis pending before a Court is required to be adjudicated on merits", the Court held.
The Appeal was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Bhika Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Appearances:
Appellant- Senior Advocate Dr. Manish Singhvi, Advocate-on-Record Manish K. Bishnoi and Advocate Karan Bishnoi
Respondent- Advocate Vivek Firoda, Advocate Hanuman Ram Mundan, Advocate Sharwan Kumar Godara, Advocate-On-Record Shubham Jain, Advocate Aneesha Rastogi, Advocate-On-Record S. Udaya Kumar Sagar