9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to decision of Central Government relocating railway headquarters, Allegation of legal mala fides, Authority to decide location of zonal office, Judicial interference in policy decisions. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the challenge to the decision of the Central Government to relocate the headquarters of South Western Railway from Bangalore to Hubli. The respondents successfully impugned this decision before the High Court of Karnataka, arguing that the shift was unlawful after public funds were spent on the establishment in Bangalore. The High Court found the decision vitiated by legal mala fides, as it was made without changed circumstances or due consideration of relevant facts. The Solicitor-General contended that the location of a zonal Railway's headquarters is a policy question beyond the court's purview. It was highlighted that the initial decision to establish the headquarters in Bangalore was not formalized through a notification under the Railways Act, and subsequently, the Union Cabinet decided to shift it to Hubli. The Supreme Court observed that changing a decision does not inherently imply legal mala fides, especially when factors like political considerations and various considerations are involved in such policy decisions. The Court emphasized that policy decisions, including the location of headquarters, are not subject to judicial interference unless there is a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. The High Court's direction to relocate the zonal office to Bangalore was deemed inappropriate as the decision on the headquarters' location falls under the government's purview, not the court's. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondents. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the limited role of courts in policy decisions, highlighting that unless there is a legal or constitutional violation, courts should refrain from interfering in matters of policy-making by the government. The decision reaffirms the principle that the location of zonal offices and headquarters is a prerogative of the government, not subject to judicial direction unless unlawfulness is established, which was not the case in this instance.
|
