# Brij Kishore Verma v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1252
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-21
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 10159 of 2010
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Shabihul Hasnain, Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-kishore-verma-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42391
- **Pages:** 71

## Headnote

Smt. Bulbul Godiyal
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Pushkar Bhagel
Ms. Alka Saxena for Union of India
3 All] Brij Kishore Verma V. State of U.P. and others
1253
C.S.C.
A.S.G.
Sri Ashok Pandey
Sri Raj Kumar

Amicus Curiae:
Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Anupam Mehrotra,

U.P. Land revenue Act-Section 11-readwith
Census Rules 1990, Rule 8(iv)-Notification
creating
new
district-disturbing
boundaries
of
Tehsil,
Block
and
constituency
during
census
work
in
progress-whether
valid?
Held-
'no'-it
cannot override over central enactment,-
power exercise by State Governmentadministrative
in
nature-during
continuance of census operation of state
government cannot exercise its power
conferred under Section 11 of U.P.L.R. Act.

Held: Para-135, 136 and 148

 In view of the above, whenever, a census
is in operation and appropriate order is
issued under the Census Rules, then, in
view of Clause (iv) of Rule 8 of Census
Rule (supra), the boundaries of districts,
tehsils and towns etc., cannot be changed
till the completion of census being based
on Central enactment. The Census Act and
Rules
framed
thereunder
will
have
overriding effect over the order passed
under the Land Revenue Act and the Rules
framed thereunder and to the extent of
repugnancy, the decision or order passed
under the Census Act and Rules framed
thereunder, shall prevail.

Since the impugned notification seems to
be in conflict with Census Rules, it shall be
bad in law and even after the end of
census operation, the notification shall
remain unlawful. Only option to the
Government will be to proceed afresh in
accordance with law.

To sum up:-

(1) Every order passed by the State
Government
in
pursuance
of
power
conferred by Articles 154, 162 read with
Article 166 of the Constitution, may not be
administrative. It shall depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.
Similarly, every order passed by the State
Government
in
pursuance
of
power
conferred by statute, may either be
legislative or administrative and shall
depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case.

(2) The order passed under statutory
provisions or in pursuance of powers
conferred under Articles 154, 162 read
with Article 166 of the Constitution, may
be administrative or legislative or quasilegislative and quasi-administrative, will
depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. The decision taken by the
State
Government
while
deciding
representation in pursuance of the order
passed by the Court or on its own, keeping
in view the 1992, regulatory Government
order
(supra)
ordinarily,
shall
be
administrative in nature.

(3) The impugned notification has
been issued while deciding representation
in compliance of the judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court
based on factual matrix of past and
present hence administrative in nature,
but it has legislative trapping. However, in
case,
the
State
Government
took
a
decision
in
compliance
of
differ

## Text

_Characters 0–39,888 of 228,403. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39888 for what follows._

1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
execution of the sentence or order
appealed against be suspended, and also,
if he is in confinement be released on bail,
meaning thereby Sub-section confers
power upon the Court not only to suspend
the execution of sentence and grant bail
but also to suspend the operation of the
order appealed.

11. From perusal of Navjot Singh
Sidhu's case(supra) it appears that the
Court has power to suspend the sentence
but such power should not be exercised in
a routine manner. The Court has to see its
ramification and after considering the
facts and circumstances of the case an
appropriate order should be passed.

12. In Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh
Narang 1995 STPL(LE) 20354 SC the
Apex Court has said that in certain
situations the order of conviction can be
executable, in the sense, it may incur a
disqualification . In appropriate cases the
power under Section 389(1) of the Code
can be invoked. In nutshell in this case
law also the Apex Court has said that an
order to suspend the sentence should not
be passed in a routine manner and before
disposing of such prayer the Court should
look
into
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances of the case and the
ramification which may ensue if an order
is passed in favour of the appellant.

13. Keeping in view the above
guidelines this Court has to see whether in
the instant case it should exercise its
discretion in favour of the appellant or
not. In the case in hand the appellant
S.K.Agarwal has been found guilty and
convicted under section 13(2) read with
section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. I have examined
the judgment of the learned lower Court
with caution. Keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of the case I do not
find that this Court should exercise its
discretion in favour of the appellant.

14. On the basis of the above
discussions, I am of the view that the
relief of suspending the sentence prayed
for by the appellant can not be granted
and therefore, the same is refused.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Misc. Bench No. 10159 of 2010

Connected with Misc. Bench No. 2037 of
2011; Misc. Bench No. 7265 of 2010;
Misc.Bench No. 7265 of 2010; Misc.
Bench No. 7711 of 2010 and Misc.Bench
No. 811 of 2012

Brij Kishore Verma

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Birendra Narain Shukla
Sri Beni Prasad Gupta
Sri Syed Ali Rehan
Sri Sushil Kumar Singh
Sri Arvins Kumar Singh
Sri Amitabh Kumar Rai
Sri Neerav Chitravanshi
Sri Sheo Prakash Singh
Sri Akhilesh Kalra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Smt. Bulbul Godiyal
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Pushkar Bhagel
Ms. Alka Saxena for Union of India
3 All] Brij Kishore Verma V. State of U.P. and others
1253
C.S.C.
A.S.G.
Sri Ashok Pandey
Sri Raj Kumar

Amicus Curiae:
Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Anupam Mehrotra,

U.P. Land revenue Act-Section 11-readwith
Census Rules 1990, Rule 8(iv)-Notification
creating
new
district-disturbing
boundaries
of
Tehsil,
Block
and
constituency
during
census
work
in
progress-whether
valid?
Held-
'no'-it
cannot override over central enactment,-
power exercise by State Governmentadministrative
in
nature-during
continuance of census operation of state
government cannot exercise its power
conferred under Section 11 of U.P.L.R. Act.

Held: Para-135, 136 and 148

 In view of the above, whenever, a census
is in operation and appropriate order is
issued under the Census Rules, then, in
view of Clause (iv) of Rule 8 of Census
Rule (supra), the boundaries of districts,
tehsils and towns etc., cannot be changed
till the completion of census being based
on Central enactment. The Census Act and
Rules
framed
thereunder
will
have
overriding effect over the order passed
under the Land Revenue Act and the Rules
framed thereunder and to the extent of
repugnancy, the decision or order passed
under the Census Act and Rules framed
thereunder, shall prevail.

Since the impugned notification seems to
be in conflict with Census Rules, it shall be
bad in law and even after the end of
census operation, the notification shall
remain unlawful. Only option to the
Government will be to proceed afresh in
accordance with law.

To sum up:-

(1) Every order passed by the State
Government
in
pursuance
of
power
conferred by Articles 154, 162 read with
Article 166 of the Constitution, may not be
administrative. It shall depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.
Similarly, every order passed by the State
Government
in
pursuance
of
power
conferred by statute, may either be
legislative or administrative and shall
depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case.

(2) The order passed under statutory
provisions or in pursuance of powers
conferred under Articles 154, 162 read
with Article 166 of the Constitution, may
be administrative or legislative or quasilegislative and quasi-administrative, will
depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. The decision taken by the
State
Government
while
deciding
representation in pursuance of the order
passed by the Court or on its own, keeping
in view the 1992, regulatory Government
order
(supra)
ordinarily,
shall
be
administrative in nature.

(3) The impugned notification has
been issued while deciding representation
in compliance of the judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court
based on factual matrix of past and
present hence administrative in nature,
but it has legislative trapping. However, in
case,
the
State
Government
took
a
decision
in
compliance
of
different
constitutional
provisions
dealt
with
(supra) followed by notification under
Section 11 of the Act and the Rules of
Business, then in such a situation, decision
may be of legislative character.

(4) Though, there is no conflict
between the Census Act and Census Rules,
1990 with Section 11 of U.P. Land Revenue
Act since both deal with the different
sphere but once a notification is issued
under Census Rule by the Government of
India as well as the State Government,
then direction under Census Rule, shall
prevail over and above the State action
under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act. Since both are irreconcilable during
the operation of a notification issued under
1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Rule 8 (4) of Census Rules, 1990, no
notification could have been issued under
the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

(5) The jurisdiction exercised by the
Government during census operation and
continuance of notification issued under
Section 8 (4) of Census Rules, the power
exercised
by
the
Government
under
Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
shall
be
illegal
and
void
hence
all
consequential action therein shall also not
survive. Of course, it shall be open for the
Government to issue a notification to meet
out exigency
of services within
the
constitutional frame and four corners of
the law after census operation.

(6). In the event of order passed
under Rule 1990 during the continuance of
census operation, the State Government
may not exercise power conferred by
Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in
a manner which may amount to change of
boundaries of district or local bodies.
Power under the Census Act and the Rules
framed thereunder, as well as power
conferred under Section 11 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act cannot be exercised
simultaneously,
because
there
is
irreconcilable conflict between the two
legislative action of the State Government
and the Central Government.

(7) Moreover, the SLP filed against
the judgment in the case of Ram Milan
Shukla (supra) was consciously dismissed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court hence it is
binding in view of Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. No contrary finding
may be recorded by the High Court in view
of binding precedent. Otherwise also,
judgment in Ram Milan Shukla's case
(supra) lays down correct law.

(8) Section 11 of the Act does not lay
down the grounds or criteria for creation
of districts. Government has rightly issued
the Government order 1992 (supra) to fill
up the gap, providing grounds for the
creation of District. Government order
1992 (supra) supplements the statutory
provision (Section 11) conferring power on
Chairman, Board of Revenue (supra), for
compliance, hence binding. In view of the
above, whenever, a census is in operation
and appropriate order is issued under the
Census Rules, then, in view of Clause (iv)
of Rule 8 of Census Rule (supra), the
boundaries of districts, tehsils and towns
etc., cannot be changed till the completion
of
census
being
based
on
Central
enactment. The Census Act and Rules
framed thereunder will have overriding
effect over the order passed under the
Land Revenue Act and the Rules framed
thereunder
and
to
the
extent
of
repugnancy, the decision or order passed
under the Census Act and Rules framed
thereunder, shall prevail.

Case Law Discussed-
JT 2007 (10) SC 509; 2008 (1) UPLBEC 625;
2004 (3) AWC 2234; 1999 (17) LCD 323; AIR
1984 SC 1130; AIR 1955 SC 549; AIR 2000 SC
1060; AIR 1979 SC; [2004 (22) LCD 1002];
(2010) 5 SCC 246; (1979) 3 SCC 431; AIR 2005
SC 2014; (1976) 1 SCC 466; AIR 1970 SC 228;
2006 (10) ADJ 86; (1998) 5 SCC 637; (1998) 2
SCC 516; (2000) 6 SCC 224; (2002) 3 SCC 219;
1984 (Supp) SCC 28; (1990) 2 SCC 562; 1991
(Supp) 1 SCC 430; (2009) 5 SCC 342; AIR 1957
SC 676; (2011) 2 SCC 591; AIR 1976 Delhi 166;
2002 5 AWC 4321; AIR 1980 SC 882; (1981) 2
SCC 722; AIR 1987 SC 1802; (1989) 3 SCC 396;
AIR 2002 SC 533; 2004 (3) AWC 2234; 1997
(88) RD 535; 2008 (2) Supreme Today 533;
W.P. No.7749 (M/B) of 2010 [Hari Bhajan Singh
and another. Vs. State of U.P. and others; (1979)
3 SCC 431; (2005) 3 SCC 212; AIR 2010 SC
1476; AIR 1978 SC 1296; 1990 (3) SCC 223;;
AIR 1952 SC 252; AIR 1956 SC 503; 1975 Supp.
SCC 1; AIR 1979 SC 1415; AIR 1974 SC 1539;
1990 Supplementary SCC 440; (2007) 8 SCC
212; AIR 1967 SC 1910; 1977 SC 757; AIR 1991
SC 2288; 1998 SC 431; AIR 1998 SC 2496; AIR
1955 SC 549; (1996) 2 SCC 305; State of M.P.
Vs. Yashvant Trimbak (Dr.); AIR 1961 SC 221;
AIE 1974 SC 2192; AIR 1982 SC 32; AIR 1981
SC 2030; AIR 1961 SC 751; AIR 1967 SC 1145;
AIR 1968 SC 870; AIR 1979 SC 1676; 2006 (2)
SCC 670; (2004) 11 SCC 625; AIR 1953 SC 148;
2001 (8) SCC 61; AIR 1971 SC 2560; AIR 1971
SC; AIR 2006 SC 2138; AIR 2008 SC 3; AIR 1996
SC 430; AIR 1984 SC 703; AIR 1984 SC 684; AIR
1963 SC 1323; (2004) 6 SCC 254; AIR 2004 SC
3 All] Brij Kishore Verma V. State of U.P. and others
1255
4057; 1999 (36) ALR 180 (SC); 2008 AIR SCW
2296; AIR, 1967 SC 1; AIR 1981 SC 1099; AiR
1983 SC 1272; (1996)3 SCC 114; AIR 1988 SC
1531; 1991 Supp (1) SCC 138; AIR 1993 SC
1407); 2000 (18) LCD 886; 2000(1) AWC 750;
1997 (88) RD 535; 2002 (4) SCC 297; 2003 SCC
(1) 410; 2006 (5) SCC 745; 2007 (10) SCC 528;
AIR 1988 SC 1681; AIR 2010 SC 1476; AIR 1988
SC 157; 1994 (5) SCC 267; 1994 (6) SCC 651;
AIR 1967 SC 1458; JT 2012 (4) SC 459; [JT 1989
(3) SC 57]; 2004 (3) AWC 2234; AIR 1987 SC
1802; AIR 1959 SC 107; AIR 2002 SC 2158; AIR
1964 SC 648; AIR 1980 SC 882; (1981) 2 SCC
722; (1989) 3 SCC 396; AIR 2002 SC 533;
(1955) 2 S.C.R. 225; AIR 1967 SC 1170; AIR
1964 SC 648; (1998) 3 SCC 381; (2004) 8 SCC
599; (2006) 1 SCC 530; 1986 AC 374; AIR 1978
SC 597; (1981) 3 SCC 181; AIR 1982 SC 1543;
AIR 1964 SC 72; AIR 1964 SC 72; AIR 1998 SC
477; 1993 (3) SCC 634; AIR 1991 SC 1902; AIR
2004 SC 827; 2011 (8) SCC 737

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1. With the change of Government,
the creation of new districts has become
a routine feature in the State of Uttar
Pradesh that too, without adverting to
financial
viability
and
necessity.
Ordinarily, decisions are political to
perpetuate legacy of political parties.

2. Similar is the case in hand
referred by the Division Bench of this
Court
relating
to
constitution
of
Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar (in
short CSM Nagar).

3. On account of conflicting
judgment with regard to right of State
Government
to
create
districts,
a
Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble
Pradeep Kant, J. and Hon'ble Ritu Raj
Awasthi, J.), has framed three (3)
questions and referred the same to the
Larger Bench. In terms thereof, Hon'ble
the Chief Justice has constituted the
present Bench. The questions referred
by the Division Bench vide order dated
25.3.2011 passed in Writ Petition
No.10159 (M/B) of 2010 and three other
connected writ petitions, are as under:

(I) Whether the issuance of
notification under section 11 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act read with section
21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act by
the Governor is legislative act or
administrative act.

(ii) Alternatively, if the exercise of
statutory power under section 11 is held
to be legislative act, then whether the
impugned notification can be held to be
violative of the directives issued by the
Central Government under rule 8(iv) of
the Census Rules, 1990, in view of
Article 246(1) of the Constitution and,
therefore, invalid.

(iii) Whether in view of the fact
that there is no apparent inconsistency
in the two Acts, namely, Census Act,
1948 (Central enactment) and the U.P.
Land Revenue Act (State enactment),
the inconsistency which has arisen
because of the exercise of executive
power by the State under the State Act
would be an inconsistency within the
meaning of Article 246 read with
Article 254 of the Constitution.

I- BRIEF FACTS

4. CSM Nagar was created by the
Notification dated 21.5.2003, issued
under Section 11 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 (in short the Act)
read with Section 21 of the U.P. General
Clauses Act, 1904 (in short General
Clauses Act), by His Excellency, the
Governor of the State of U.P. The
Notification was challenged in this
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Court
by
preferring
Writ
Petition
No.5027 (M/B) of 2003 [Nagarjun
Prasad Gupta. Vs. State of U.P. and
others]. A Division Bench of this Court
by an interim order dated 9.10.2003,
stayed the operation of notification
keeping in view the earlier Division
Bench judgment of Allahabad High
Court reported in 1999 (17) LCD 323
[Ram Milan Shukla and others. Vs.
State of U.P. and others]. s

5. During the pendency of the Writ
Petition No.5027 (M/B) of 2003 filed by
Nagarjun Prasad Gupta (supra), the
State of U.P. decided to abolish new
district hence, a Notification dated
13.11.20003 was issued under Section
11 of the Act read with Section 21 of
General Clauses Act. The Notification
dated 13.11.2003 is being reproduced as
under:-

उर देश सरकार
राज
व अनुभाग-5
-----------
संया 3122/1-5-2003-181-2002-रा-5
लखनऊ, 13 नवबर, 2003
-----------
अिधसूचना
प० आ०-606
उर
देश
साधारण
ख$ड
अिधिनयम, 1904 (उर देश अिधिनयम
संया 1 सन 1904) क' धारा 21 के साथ
प)ठत यू० पी०लै$ड रेवे.यू ऎ0ट, 1901
(यू०पी० ऎ0ट संया 3 सन 1901) क'
धारा 11 के अधीन श23 का योग करके
और छ7पित शाहजी महाराज नगर के ू
नाम से नये 9जले के सृजन के सब.ध
म; इस िनिम जार= सरकार= अिधसूचना
संया
सी०एल०-17/1-5-2003-1812002-रा०-5, )दनांक 21 मई, २००३ का
अिधBमण करके राCयपाल उ3 9जला
छ7पित शाहजी महाराज नगर को समाD ू
करते हE और इस अिधसूचना के गजट म;
कािशत होने के )दनांक से अनुसूची-एक
और दो म; Bमशः उ9Gल9खत Hे7I को
समा2वJ करते हए 2वKमान 9जला ु
रायबरेली और सुलतानपुर क' सीमाओं
को पMरवितNत करते हE।

अनुसूची-एक

अनुसूची-दो
1- ितलोई

1- अमेठP
2- सालोन

2- गौर=गंज

 3- जगद=शपुर
(ितलोई व सालोन) के 2वधान सभा
िनवाNचन Hे7I म; समा2वJ )कये गये
9जला रायबरेली के राज
व Tाम।
(अमेठP, गौर=गंज व जगद=शपुर) के
2वधान सभा िनवाNचन Hे7I म; समा2वJ
)कये गये 9जला सुलतानपुर के राज
व
Tाम।

आVा से
ट=० पी० पाठक
2वशेष सिचव।

6. On account of census operation
undertaken by the Government of India,
by Notification dated 22.9.2009, the
State Government was required not to
change the boundaries of Nagar Paikas,
Revenue
villages,
Tahsils,
police
3 All] Brij Kishore Verma V. State of U.P. and others
1257
stations,
Vikas
Khands,
Taluqas,
Parganas, districts etc., from 1.1.2010 to
31.3.2011. In consequence thereof, the
State Government by Notification dated
22.12.2009, issued under Rule 8 (4) of
Census Rules, 1991, directed not to
change the administrative boundaries of
districts, Tahsils in the State of U.P.

7. During the operation of
Notification dated 22.12.2009, by the
impugned Notification dated 1.7.2010
issued by His Excellency, the Governor
under Section 11 of the Act, read with
Section 21 of General Clauses Act, the
earlier Notification dated 13.11.2003
was rescinded restoring the CSM Nagar.
The Notification dated 1.7.2010 is
reproduced as under:-

''उर देश शासन
राज
व अनुभाग-5
-----------
संया 1858/1-5-2010-181-2002ट=०सी०-रा०-5
लखनऊ, 1 जुलाई, 2010
अिधसूचना
प०आ०-395

उर
देश
साधारण
ख$ड
अिधिनयम, 1904 (उर देश अिधिनयम
संया 1 सन 1904) क' धारा 21 के साथ
प)ठत यू० पी०लै$ड रेवे.यू ऎ0ट, 1901
(यू०पी० ऎ0ट संया 3 सन 1901) क'
धारा 11 Xारा द श23 का योग
करके राCयपाल इस अिधसूचना के गजट
म; कािशत होने के )दनांक से 9जला
छ7पित शाह ूजी महाराज नगर को
समाD करने के सब.ध म; सरकार=
अिधसूचना संया 3122/1-5-2003-1812002-रा-5 )दनांक 13 नवबर, 2003 को
2वख9$डत करते हE और यह िनदYश देते
है )क उ3 9जला छ7पित शाह जी ू
महाराज नगर को पुन
थाN2पत )कया
जायेगा, 9जसका मुयालय गौरागंज म;
होगा, 9जसम; सरकार= अिधसूचना संया
सी०एम०-17/1-5-2003-181-2002-स०-5
)दनांक 21 मई, 2003 क' अनुसूची-2 मे
स9मिलत राज
व TामI के Hे7 समा2वJ
हIगे।

2- राCयपाल अTतर िनदेश देते हE
)क इस अिधसूचना क' )कसी बात का
भाव, )कसी 2विध .यायालय म; 9जसने
अब तक उ3 Hे7I के सब.ध म;
अिधकाMरता का योग )कयाहै, पहले से
ारभ क' गयी या 2वचाराधीन )कसी
2विधक कायNवाह= पर नह=ं पड़ेगा।

 आVा से,
के० के० िस.हा
मुख सिचव।''

8.

The
notification
dated
22.12.2009 was issued in pursuance of
the Circular dated 22.9.2009 issued
under rule 8 (4) of the Census Rule by
the
Government
of
India.
For
convenience, Circular dated 22.9.2009,
issued by the Government of India, and
the consequential notification dated
22.12.2009, issued by the Government
of Uttar Pradesh, are reproduced as
under:-
1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
"Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
2A, Mansingh Road, New Delhi - 110 011

No.9/66/09-CD (CEN) Dated : 22.9.09

CENSUS OF INDIA 2011-CIRCULAR
NO. 6

Subject : Census of India 2011- Fixing
of boundaries of Administrative Units
during the period of the census
operations.

The preparations for the next
decennial Census of India, 2011 are in
full swing. The pre-test of Census of
India, 2011 has already been conducted
and now we are towards 1st phase of
the main Census i.e., Housing and
House listing Census to be conducted
all over the country from April, 2010
followed
by
the
Population
Enumeration in February/March, 2011.

2. During the census operations,
it is important to ensure the complete
coverage, hence, the entire country is
divided into small Enumeration Blocks
within the framework of respective
Administrative Units in the States and
Union
Territories.
The
work
of
demarcation
of
these
Enumeration
Blocks is taken up well in advance of
the House listing Operations, as the
census maps are to be prepared
accordingly to obviate any overlapping
or omission of areas.

3. For conducting the census
operation efficiently, it is necessary to
ensure
that
the
boundaries
of
administrative units are not disturbed
after
the
demarcation
of
the
Enumeration Blocks till the completion
of the census operation. Thus, any
changes proposed in the jurisdiction of
the existing administrative units may
be effected well before 1st January,
2010.

4. In the circumstances, proposals
for
making
any
changes
in
the
boundaries of existing municipalities,
revenue
villages,
tahsils,
police
stations, development blocks, talukas,
sub-divisions, district etc., or for
forming new units which may be
pending or which may be taken up on
near future, may kindly be finalized
and given effect by 31st December,
2009. All such changes may please be
intimated to the concerned Census
Directorates in State/U.P. and the
office of the Registrar General, India
by 31st December, 2009. The State
Government may further ensure that no
changes, whatsoever, are effected in
the boundaries of these administrative
units during the period from 1st
January, 2010 to 31st March, 2011.
Sd/-
(D.K. Sikri)
Registrar General and
Census Commissioner, India
To

1. All Chief Secretaries
 2. All Directorates of Census
Operations
3. PS to Secretary (RGI)
4. PS to JS (OSD)
5. PS to Addl. (RGI)
6. PS to DDG (MNIC)
7. All Heads of Divisions of ORGI
8. Language Division, Kolkata
9. AD (OL) for Hindi translation
10. Census Division (15) copies)
11. Guard file"
True copy
3 All] Brij Kishore Verma V. State of U.P. and others
1259

|| TYPED COPY ||
'' उर देश शासन
सामा.य शासन अनुभागसंया--जी०
आई०166 / तीन--09--16 (1) / 2009
लखनऊः )दनांक 22)दसबर, 2009

अिधसूचना

चूं)क गृह मं7ालय, भारत सरकार ने
अपने पMरप7 संया--4/68/09 सी० ड=०
(सी०ई०एन०), )दनांक 22िसतबर, 2000
Xारा यह अनुरोध )कया है )क राCय
सरकार 2वKमान नगर पािलकाओं, राज
व
Tाम,
तहसील,
थाना,
2वकास
ख$ड,तालुकाओं, परगना और 9जला आ)द
क' सीमाओं म; )कसी कार का पMरवतNन
करने या नई इकाईयI को ग)ठत करने के

ताव जो ल9बत हI या िनकट भ2व[य
म; 9जसका िन
तारण होना हो, को अ.तम
\प देकर 31 )दसबर, 2009 तक भावी
कर;, पMरवतNनI, य)द कोई हो, के सब.ध म;
सूचना राCय के जनगणना िनदेशालय तथा
भारत सरकार के महार9ज
]ार कायाNलय
को 31 )दसबर, 2009 तक द;।

और चूं)क भारत सरकार ने राCय
सरकार से यह सुिन9^त करने के िलए भी
अनुरोध )कया है )क उपयुN3 शासिनक
इकाईयI क' सीमा म; 01 जनवर=, 2010 से
31 माचN, 2011 क' अविध के दौरान कोई
पMरवतNन, जो भी हो, भावी न )कया जाए।

अतएव अब जनगणना अिधिनयम,
1948 (अिधिनयम संया 37 सन ्1948)
क' धारा--18 क' उपधारा (1) के अधीन
श23 का योग करके के.` सरकार Xारा
िनिमNत जनगणना िनयमावली, 1990 के
िनयम 8 के ख$ड (चार) के अधीन श23 का
योग करके राCयपाल िनदेश देते हE )क
नगर पािलकाओं, राज
व TामI, तहसीलI,
पुिलस थानI, 2वकास ख$डI, तालुकI, परगनI
और 9जलI आ)द क' शासिनक सीमाओं
म; 01 जनवर=, 2010 से ारभ होने वाली
और 31 माचN, 2011 को समाD होने वाली
अविध के दौरान पMरवतNन नह=ं )कया
जायेगा।
के० के० िस.हा,
मुख सिचव
संया--जी० आई०166(1) /तीन--2009
त)aनांक
ितिल2प िननिल9खत को सूचनाथN
एवं आवbयक कायNवाह= हेतु े2षतः-

1. मुख सिचव, cी राCयपाल, उर देश
शासन।
2. मुख सिचव, 2वधान सभा, उर देश।
3. मुख सिचव, 2वधान पMरषद, उर
देश।
4. अपर मं27म$डलीय सिचव, उर देश
शासन।
5. मुख
टाफ अिधकार=, मं27म$डलीय
सिचव, उर देश शासन।
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
6. मुख
टाफ अिधकार=, मुय सिचव,
उर देश शासन।
7. कृ2ष उeपादन आयु3/अव
थापना एवं
औKोिगक 2वकास आयु3/समाज कGयाण
आयु3, उर देश
शासन।
8. भारते के महार9ज
]ार एवं जनगणना
आयु3, 2/ए, मानिसंह रोड, नई )दGली को
उनके प7ांक-9/66/09-CD (CSN) )दनांक
22-09-2009 के Bम म;।
9. सम
त मुख सिचव/सिचव, मा०
मुयमं7ी, उर देश शासन।
10. सम
त 2वभागाfयH, उर देश।
11. सम
त म$डलायु3, उर देश।
12. सम
त 9जलािधकार=/मुय नगर
अिधकार=, उर देश।
13. िनदेशक, जनग$ना कायN .............,
लखनऊ।
14 . संयु3 िनदेशक, राजक'य मु`णालय,
उ० ०, ऎशबाग, लखनऊ को राCय सरकार
के गजट के आगामी अंक म; काशनाथN।
15.

सिचवालय
के
सम
त
अनुभाग/...............
16. गाडN बुक।
आVा से,
 ह०/-
 (पी० एन० यादव)
2वशेष सिचव। ''

9. A Writ Petition No.6077 (M/B) of
2003 was filed in this Court by one Uma
Shanker Pandey which was decided by a
Division Bench of this Court by judgment
and order dated 26.3.2010 at admission
stage. The judgment and order dated
26.3.2010, passed by the Division Bench
in Writ Petition No.6077 (M/B) of 2003 is
reproduced as under:-

"Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6077 of
2003
Petitioner :- Uma Shanker Pandey
(P.I.L.)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru
Principal Secretary And 2 Ors
Petitioner
Counsel
:-
S.B
Pandey,R.K.Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C

Hon'ble Amitava Lala,Acting Chief
Justice
Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.

The grievance of the writ petitioner is
that in spite of creation of the district,
namely,
Chhatrapati
Shahuji
Maharaj
Nagar, all the effects were not given due to
an interim order and thereafter the
notification was withdrawn though other
nine districts and Tehsils are created,
therefore,
the
matter
requires
little
consideration by the State Government and
we wanted to get the submissions from the
Advocate General.

According to us, powers to create, alter
and abolish divisions, districts, tahsil and
sub-divisions are lying with the State
Government under Section 11 of the Uttar
Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901.

Though such creation was made by the
subsequent notification, but according to the
petitioner he cannot be thrown out from his
right to get an appropriate consideration by
the State. Hence in disposing of the writ
petition, we direct the writ petitioner to
3 All] Brij Kishore Verma V. State of U.P. and others
1261
make a representation to the authority
concerned within a period of one week from
obtaining a certified copy of this order and
if it is made, the authority concerned will
consider the same upon giving the fullest
opportunity of hearing and by passing a
reasoned order thereon within a period of
three months from the date of making such
application. For the purpose of effective
adjudication, a copy of the writ petition
along with its annexures, affidavits and
relevant judgments can also be treated as
part and parcel of the representation for due
consideration.

The
petition
is
disposed
of
accordingly, however, without imposing
any cost.

Order Date :- 26.3.2010 "

10.

Admittedly,
the
impugned
notification dated 1.7.2010 was issued in
pursuance of the decision taken on the
representation submitted by Sri Uma
Shanker Pandey (supra), in pursuance to the
order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court (supra).

11. Section 11 of the Act does not
provide any guideline for creation of
district. However, State Government issued
a Government order in the year 1992
addressed to Chairman, Board of Revenue,
laying down certain guidelines prescribing
the minimum area, population, police
stations, blocks, tahsils and lekhpals for the
purpose of creation of new district. Two
Division Benches of this court in the case
reported in 2000 (18) LCD 886: Brijendra
Kumar Gupta and others. Vs. State of
U.P. and others, and the case reported in
1999 (17) LCD 323 [Ram Milan Shukla
and others. Vs. State of U.P. and others],
held that it shall be obligatory for the State
Government to abide by the regulatory
Government order issued in the year 1992
with regard to creation of districts. From the
material on record, it is also evident that
according to own version of
 the State Government, the Government
order issued in the year 1992 regulating
conditions for creation of district, has been
followed.

12. During the course of hearing on
12.9.2012, in pursuance of directions issued
by this Court, records were produced. From
the records also, it is apparent that while
deciding representation submitted by Sri
Uma Shanker Pandey in terms of the order
passed by this Court, the 1992 Government
order has been taken into account. The
ordersheet dated 12.9.2012 is reproduced as
under:

"Court No. - 27

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 10159 of 2010
Petitioner :- Brij Kishore Verma ( P.I.L.Civil)
Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru. Prin.
Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Birendra Narain Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.

Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

Smt. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Addl.
Advocate General in pursuance to earlier
order produced the record before the court.
Record contains the office note with regard
to decision taken in pursuance to an interim
order dated 26.3.2010, passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in writ petition
No.6077(M/B) of 2003 Uma Shanker
Pandey versus State of U.P. and others.
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

According to the office note dated
30.6.2010, a decision was taken in
compliance of the order passed by this
Court (supra) and the office note was
forwarded for the opinion of the Principal
Secretary (Law) who opined that the
notification will be issued for the restoration
of the district in the manner it has been
done. Relevant office note from the record
is as under :

izLrqr
fjV
;kfpdk
la[;k&6077@2003
mek'kadj ik.Ms; cuke mRrj izns'k ljdkj o vU; esa
ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 26-03-2010 dks ikfjr
vkns'kksa ds vuqikyu esa izLrkfor fd;k tk jgk gS A
ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr vkns'k ds vuqlkj
;kph Jh mek'akdj ik.Ms; }kjk viuk izR;kosnu fnukad
03-04-2010 dks 'kklu ds le{k izLrqr fd;k A ifj"kn
}kjk Jh mek'kadj ik.Ms;] ,sMoksdsV dks uksfVl
la[;k&157@9&125 ih@04 fnukad 21-05-2010 fuxZr
dh x;h] ftlesa mUgsa fnukad 01-06-2010 dks lfer ds
le{k mifLFkr gksdj rFkk viuk i{k izLrqr djus dk
funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk A;kph Jh mek 'kadj ikaMs]
mPpLrjh; lfefr ds le{k 1&6&2010 dks mifLFkr
gq;s rFkk viuk i{k izLrqr fd;k A

mPp
Lrjh;
lfefr
us
i=
la[;k&lh0th0185@th&125ih@04 fnukad 04-06-2010
ds ek/;e ls tuin N=ifr 'kkgw th egkjktuxj dks
cgky fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh gSA ek0 mPp
U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 26-03-2010 ds vuqikyu esa
U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr rhu ekg dh le; lhek ds
v/khu ;kph ds izR;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkuk gS A

;gkW ;g mYys[k djuk lehphu gksxk fd Hkkjr
dh tux.kuk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, 'kklu dh
vf/klwpuk fnukad 22-12-2009 }kjk ftys] rglhy vkfn
ds lhek ifjorZu ij fnaukd 01 tuojh] 2010 ls 31
ekpZ] 2011 rd jksd yxk nh x;h gS A bl jksd ds
n`f"Vxr tux.kuk ds vkadMs+ iwoZ tuinksa esa n'kkZ;s
tk;sxs A rFkk 31 ekpZ]2011 ds i'pkr~ jkT; ljdkj
vius iz;kstuksa gsrw bUgsa uol`ftr tuinksa esa gLrkUrfjr
dj mi;ksx dj ldsxh A

vr% ek0 eaf=ifj"kn ls vuqjsk/k gS fd fjV ;kfpdk
la[;k&6077@2003 mek'kadj ik.Ms; cuke mRrj Ikzns'k
ljdkj o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 26-03-2010 ds
vuqikyu esa mPpLrjh; lfefr dh laLrqfr dk laKku ysrs
gq, ;kph dk izR;kosnu Lohdkj djsa rFkk vf/klwpuk
la[;k&3122@ 1&5&2003&181& 2002&jk&5] fnukad 13
uoEcj] 2003 dks fujLr djrs gq, vf/klwpuk
la[;k&lh0,e0&17@1&5&2003&181&2002&jk&5]
fnukad 21 ebZ] 2003 dks cgky dj nsa A

mijksDrkuqlkj ek0 eaf=ifj"kn ds vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr
dh tkus okyh fVii.kh rS;kj dj yh x;h gS tks lEeq[k
izLrqr gS A d`i;k vuqeksnu iznku djuk pkgsa A

gLrk{kj viBuh;
30&6&2010
gLrk{kj viBuh;
30&6&2010
la;qDr lfpo

gLrk{kj viBuh;
ds0ds0 flUgk
izeq[k lfpo ,oa jkgr vk;qDr
jktLo foHkkx
mRrj izns'k 'kklu

la;qDr lfpo

ek0eaf=ifj"kn ds vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr dh tkus okyh fVIi.kh
ij izeq[k lfpo egksn; dk vuqeksnu izkIr gks x;k gS
A d`i;k fVIi.kh ij U;k; foHkkx dk vfHker izkIr
djus ls iwoZ izeq[k lfpo egksn; dk vuqeksnu izkIr
djuk pkgsa A fjV ls lEcfU/kr i=koyh la0 Vhlh
1231@02 layXu gS A

g0 viBuh;
30&6&10

izeq[k lfpo

gLrk{kj viBuh;
ds0ds0 flUgk
izeq[k lfpo ,oa jkgr vk;qDr
izeq[k lfpo U;k;

 jktLo
foHkkx

 mRrj izns'k 'kklu

eSaus ek0 v/;{k jktLo ifj"kn] m0iz0 dh v/;{krk esa
xfBr mPp Lrjh; lfefr fnukad 1&6&2010 ds
dk;Zor dk v/;;u fd;k A lfefr us uol`ftr
tuin gsrq 'kklu }kjk fu/kZkfjr ekud ds vuq:i gksus
ds n`f"Vxr tuin dks iqu% cgky fd;k tkuk vkSfpR;
iw.kZ ekuk gS A
3 All] Brij Kishore Verma V. State of U.P. and others
1263
vr% lferh dh laLrqrh dks ekuus esa dksb fof/kd
ck/kk ugha gS
ds0ds0'kekZ
izeq[k lfpo U;k;
30&6&10

xksiu vuqHkkx&1

d`i;k tuin N=ifr 'kkgwth egkjktuxj dh
iquLZFkkiuk ds lEcU/k esa ek0 eaf=&ifj"kn ds fy;s
fVIi.kh dh 4&5 izfr;ka] 3 cqysV IokbaV~l lfgr izLrqr
gS] d`i;k xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa A

 g0viBuh;
e;wj vyh

 30&6&2010
vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

 milfpo
jktLo vuqHkkx

 jktLo
lfpoky;] y[kum

It appears that the petitioner Uma
Shanker Pandey appeared before the
committee constituted by the government
on 1.6.2010. The report of the committee
was forwarded to the Principal Secretary,
Law who in turn gave his opinion on
30.6.2010.

Again according to the record, on the
same
day,
the
entire
material
was
considered by the Principal Secretary,
Home and the Addl. Cabinet Secretary who
placed the matter before the Cabinet. Office
note is reproduced as under :

xksiu vuqHkkx&1 esa fVIi.kh

fo'ks"k lfpo
d`i;k xr i`"V&7 ij jktLo vuqHkkx&5 dh
fVii.kh dk voyksdu djus dk d"V djsa A

2& iz'kkldh; foHkkx }kjk tuin N=ifr 'kkgw th
egkjkt uxj dh iquZLFkkiuk ds laca/k esa izLrko ek0
eaf=ifj"kn ds le{k izLrqr fd;s tkus gsrq miyC/k
djk;k x;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd iz'kkldh; foHkkx
}kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS fd vf/klwpuk fnukad
21&5&2003 }kjk N=ifr 'kkgw th egkjkt uxj ds
uke ls ,d u;k ftyk l`ftr fd;k x;k Fkk ftldk
eq[;ky; xkSjhxat esa j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj ftlesa tuin
jk;cjsyh rFkk tuin lqyrkuiqj ds dfri; {ks=ksa dk
lekos'k fd;k x;k Fkk A vf/klwpuk fnukdW
13&11&2003 }kjk mDr tuin dks lekIr dj fn;k
x;k Fkk] ftlds fojks/k esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] y[kum
esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 6077@03 ;ksftr gqbZ A mDr
fjV ;kfpdk esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 26-32010 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa iz'kklfd;
foHkkx dk izLrko gS fd mPpLrjh; lfefr dh laLrqfr
dk laKku ysrs gq, ;kph dk izR;kosnu Lohdkj dj
fy;k tk; rFkk vf/klwpuk fnukad 13 uoEcj] 2003 dks
vf/kdzfer djrs gq, vf/klwpuk fnukad 21 ebZ] 2003
dks iquZLFkkfir dj fn;k tk, A

3& iz'uxr izLrko ij foRr@U;k; foHkkx }kjk
O;Dr vukifRr dk lekos'k eaf=ifj"kn ds fy, fVIi.kh
ds dze'k% izLrj&6@7 esa fd;k x;k gS A foRr@U;k;
foHkkx dk vfHker i=koyh ds dze'k% i`"B 4@7 ij
voyksduh; gS A iz'kkldh; foHkkx }kjk miyC/k djk;h
eaf=ifj"kn ds fy, fVIi.kh dks ek0 foHkkxh; ea=h th
}kjk i=koyh ds i`"B &2 ij vuqeksfnr dj fn;k x;k
gS A vLrq ;fn lger gks rks] iz'uxr izLrko dks ek0
eaf=ifj"kn ds le{k izLrqr fd;s tkus gsrw i=koyh
izeq[k lfpo] vfrfjDr eaf=e.Myh; lfpo ,oa eq[;
lfpo egksn; ds voyksdukFkZ izLrqr djuk pkgsa A
eq[; lfpo egksn; ds voyksduksijkUr iz'uxr izLrko
dks ek0 eaf=ifj"kn ds le{k izLrqr fd;s tkus gsrw
i=koyh eaf=e.Myh; lfpo egksn; ds vuqeksnukFkZ
izLrqr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gS A

g0viBuh;
30&6&2010
d`".k xksiky
fo'ks"k lfpo] xksiu
m0iz0'kklu
g0viBuh;
30&6&2010
daqoj Qrsg cgknqj flag
izeq[k lfpo] x`g ,oa xksiu
m0iz0'kklu

30&6&2010
usrjke

 vrqy dqekj xqIrk
vfr-eaf=e.Myh; lfpo]
 eq[;
lfpo
m0iz0'kklu

m0iz0'kklu

'k'kkad 'ks[kj flag
eaf=&e.Myh; lfpo
m0iz0'kklu
1264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

Vhisa vkSj vkKk;sa
.
dzekad ek0eaf=ifj"kn ds vkns'k fnukad 1&7&2010
fo0i0
mi lfpo

d`i;k ek0 eaf= ifj"kn ds vkns'k ns[ksa A

tuin N=ifr 'kkgw th egkjkt uxj dks
iquZLFkkfir fd;s tkus ds vkns'k izkIr gq, gSa A vkns'ksa
ds vuqikyu esa vf/klwpuk dk vaxzsth o fgUnh vkys[k
rS;kj dj fy;k x;k gS A bl ij fo/kk;h@Hkk"kk foHkkx
dk fo/kh{k.k izkIr djus ls iwoZ izeq[k lfpo egksn; dk
vuqeksnu izkIr djuk pkgsa A
izeq[k lfpo

vkj0,u0mik/;k;

fo'ks'k lfpl] jktLo foHkkx

m0iz0'kklu

g0viBuh;
1&7&10
vy[k ukjk;.k
fo'ks"k lfpo ,oa vij fof/k ijke'khZ
fo/kk;h ,oa lalnh; dk;Z foHkkx
m0iz0'kklu

From the aforesaid material on record,
there appears to be no room of doubt that
the decision with regard to creation of
district was taken while deciding the
representation submitted by Uma Shanker
Pandey, Advocate.

One other fact appearing from the
record is that the committee constituted in
pursuance to the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court consists of Rajiv
Kumar, Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal,
Faizabad,
Ajai
Deep
Singh,
Special
Secretary, Niyojan Vibhag, Uttar Pradesh
Shashan, Lucknow, Dr. Pinki Jowal,
Special Secretary, Finance Department,
U.P. Government, Lucknow, Shanker Lal
Pandey, District Magistrate, Sultanpur, Dr.
Charanjeet
Singh
Bakshi,
District
Magistrate, Raibareli and Shri Sanjeev
Dubey, Commissioner and Secretary, Board
of Revenue/ Member Secretary.

The committee while concluding its
opinion after considering the representation
submitted by Uma Shanker Pandey has
given a word of caution that before taking a
decision with regard to the controversy in
question, the government should take into
account the embargo imposed by the
Census Commission, according to which
the boundary of the district cannot be
changed during the period from 1.1.2010 to
31.3.2011. Operative portion of the opinion
of the committee dated 4.6.2010 is
reproduced as under :

'kklukns'k
la[;k
vkj0.p0340@92&jk-&5
fnukad 20&10&1992 }kjk ftyk l`tu gsrq fu/kkZfjr
ekud ds lkis{k tuin N=ifr 'kkgwth egjktuxj dk
ekud fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS &

1& tula[kk 17-21 yk[k

 ekud
15 yk[k
2& {ks=Qy 3070oxZ fd0eh0 ekud 5000 oxZ fd0eh0
3& rglhy 05

 ekud
 03
4& fodkl [k.M 16

 ekud

10
5& Fkkuk 17

 ekud

12
6& ys[kiky {ks0 401

 ekud

300

mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd N=ifr 'kkgwth
egjktuxj {ks=Qy dks NksMdj 'ks"k lHkh ekudksa dks
iwjk djrk gS A ;kph dks lquus ds i'pkr lfefr }kjk
;g er fofuf'pr fd;k x;k fd ;|fi N=ifr 'kkgwth
egjktuxj dks cgky djus gsrq dksb fof/kd ck/;rk
ugha gS] fdUrq uol`ftr tuin gsrq 'kklu }kjk
fu/kkZfjr ekud ds vuq:i gksus ds n`f"Vxr mDr
tuin dks iqu% cgky fd;k tkuk vkSfpR;iw.kZ gksxk A
rn~uqlkj 'kklu dh vf/klwpuk la[;k lh0,e0
17@1&5&
2003&181@2002&jk05]
fnukad
21&5&2003 lftr ,oa 'kklu dh vf/klwpuk la[;k
3122@1&5&2003&181@2003
jk05]
fnukad
13&11&2003 ds }kjk lekIr fd;s x;s tuin N=ifr
'kkgwth egjktuxj dks cgky fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr
dh tkrh gS A

lfefr }kjk ;gka ;g voxr djkuk lehphu
ik;k x;k fd Hkkjr dh tux.kuk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs
gq;s 'kklu dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 22&12&2009 }kjk
3 All] Brij Kishore Verma V. State of U.P. and others
1265
ftys rglhy vkfn ds lhek ifjorZu ij fnukad 1
tuojh 2010 ls 31 ekpZ 2011 rd jksd yxk nh x;h
gS] dks laKku esa ysrs gq, iz'uxr izdj.k esa ;Fkksfpr
dk;Zokgh 'kklu Lrj ls fd;k tkuk ;Fks"V gksxk\
g0viBuh;
vk;qDr ,oa lfpo A

From the report, it appears that
Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Nagar does
not fulfill the required criteria for creation of
district to the extent its area is concerned.
This aspect of the matter may be considered
by the Division Bench.

We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Special counsel engaged by the
court Shri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Anupam Mehrotra, Smt.
Bulbul Godiyal, Addl. Advocate General,
assisted by Shri Pushkar Bhagel and Ms.
Alka Saxena appearing on behalf of Union
of India.

Judgement reserved.

The State Govt shall ensure the
payment of remuneration to Shri S.K. Kalia,
learned Senior Advocate and Shri Anupam
Mehrotra, assisting counsel in terms of the
order dated 13.1.2012 passed by this Court,
within a period of two months from today.

For additional expenses, incurred by
Shri Anupam Mehrotra, he will submit the
bill and the same shall also be paid by the
State Government.

Order Date :- 12.9.2012"

13. It is strange to note that while
adjudicating the controversy keeping in
view the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court (supra), in pursuance of
the representation submitted by Sri Uma
Shanker Pandey Advocate, the observation
has been made that things are processed for
the creation of district in pursuance of the
judgment and order dated 26.3.2010, passed
by the Division bench of this Court (supra),
which at the face of record, seems to be
incorrect. The burden has been shifted on
the orders passed by the Division Bench of
this court as the ground to create the district
(supra) though the order was to decide the
representation. The Office Note further
reveals that in terms of the Government
order of the year 1992, all the conditions are
not fulfilled. The area of CSM Nagar is less
than what is required under the Government
order of the year 1992.

Sri Anupam Mehrotra vehemently
argued that the impugned notification has
been issued arbitrarily, merely for the
political end and it neither fulfils the
conditions required by the Government
order of the year 1992 nor the necessity for
creation of new district has been looked into
by the Government including the financial
viability keeping in view the judgment of
this Court in the case of Ram Milan Shukla
(supra). However, this aspect of the matter
does not call for adjudication for this Full
Bench. We leave it open for the Division
bench to look into it in case it is pleaded and
raised.

14.