9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order the High Court disposed of the writ petition as follows: In view of the order passed in W.P. No. 5004 of 1999 Mohd. Tariq v. State of U.P. no further order is required in this petition. Petition is disposed of. 3. Since the order is practically unreasoned, it is necessary to take note of the factual background. On 15.9.1997 a Notification was issued under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short the 'Act') read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (in short the 'General Clauses Act'). The Governor directed creation of a new District by the name of Baghpat with effect from the date of publication of the Notification. A Writ Petition No. 9085 of 1999 was filed c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intervention is called for under Article 136. Hence the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed . 5. In the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9085 of 1999 to which the present dispute relates, counter affidavit was filed on 16.3.1999. Another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5004 of 1999 was filed before the High Court challenging the creation of Kausambi District. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12.4.1999 with reference to the order passed by the High Court in Ram Milan Shukla's case referred to above. 6. Learned Advocate General of the State submitted before the High Court when the writ petition was being heard that the Government will comply with the orders of the High Court made in Ram Milan Shukla's case. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n decided that new districts and Divisions created in the year 1997 shall be continued as it is and with regard to them further steps as necessary regarding placing of Ordinance/Bill be taken. 8. It appears that there was a contempt petition filed before the High Court i.e. Contempt Petition No. 1449 of 1999 in CMWP No. 39756/1998 which was disposed of inter-alia with the following observations: In supplementary counter affidavit filed by Ajit Kumar Shahu, Secretary, Revenue Department of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, dated 13.3.2002, it has been stated that pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the Cabinet had constituted a Sub-Committee under the Chairmanship of Revenue Minister regarding the consideration of utility, viability and ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rightly taken note of several factors. 11. In Ram Milan's case the High Court had directed re- consideration which apparently has been done as is evident from the Cabinet's decision. Cabinet's decision was taken nearly eight years back and appears to be operative. That being so there is no scope for directing reconsideration as was done in Ram Milan's case, though learned Counsel for the respondents prayed that such a direction should be given. As rightly contended by learned Counsel for the State, in matters of policy decisions, the scope of interference is extremely limited. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
