1988 (7) TMI 233 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether location of Mandal Headquarters was a purely governmental function and therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? Held that - The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the gram pahchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place X rather than place Y as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than amininstrative instructions not having any statutory force which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the location of Mandal Headquarters is a purely governmental function and therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The validity of the guidelines issued by the State Government for the formation of Mandals and location of Mandal Headquarters.
3. Whether the High Court can interfere with the government's decision on the location of Mandal Headquarters based on the guidelines.
4. The scope of judicial review over administrative decisions and guidelines.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the location of Mandal Headquarters is a purely governmental function and therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court held that the location of Mandal Headquarters is a governmental function based on administrative convenience. The Court emphasized that the ultimate decision regarding the location of Mandal Headquarters is for the government to take, considering administrative convenience and the purpose of the legislation, which is to bring the administration nearer to the people and make public services easily available to them. The Court stated, "It cannot be said that in any of the cases the action of the Government for location of such Mandal Headquarters was mala fide or in bad faith or that it proceeded on extraneous considerations."

2. The validity of the guidelines issued by the State Government for the formation of Mandals and location of Mandal Headquarters:
The Court noted that the guidelines issued by the State Government had no statutory force and were merely executive instructions for the guidance of the Collectors. The guidelines were meant to assist the Collectors in formulating proposals for the formation of Revenue Mandals and the location of their Headquarters. The Court observed, "The guidelines issued by the State Government had no statutory force and they were merely in the nature of executive instructions for the guidance of the Collectors."

3. Whether the High Court can interfere with the government's decision on the location of Mandal Headquarters based on the guidelines:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the government's decision regarding the location of Mandal Headquarters. The Court held that the High Court could not substitute its judgment for that of the State Government. Even if there was a breach of the guidelines, the utmost the High Court could have done was to quash the impugned notification and direct the government to reconsider the question. The Court stated, "There was no warrant for the High Court to have gone further and directed the shifting of the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place."

4. The scope of judicial review over administrative decisions and guidelines:
The Supreme Court discussed the principles of judicial review over administrative decisions, emphasizing that courts have the power to scrutinize the factual bases upon which discretionary powers have been exercised. However, the Court clarified that non-statutory guidelines do not confer any legal right enforceable through writs under Article 226. The Court cited several authorities to support this view, including G.J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore, where it was held that non-observance of administrative instructions does not give any right to a person to seek relief in court. The Court concluded, "The guidelines are merely in the nature of instructions issued by the State Government to the Collectors regulating the manner in which they should formulate their proposals."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court where it had interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters, emphasizing that the decision was a governmental function not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court reiterated that the guidelines issued by the State Government had no statutory force and were not enforceable through writs. The Court stated, "The result therefore is that Civil Appeal Nos. 1980, 1982, 1985, and 1987 of 1986 and all other appeals and special leave petitions directed against the judgment of the High Court where it has interfered with the location of the Mandal Headquarters, must succeed and are allowed."