# J.R. RAGHUPATHY, ETC v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 694
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1988-07-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1987of1986
- **Bench:** A.P. Sen, B.C. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/j-r-raghupathy-etc-v-state-of-a-p-ors-etc-9986
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974-Whether location of Revenue Manda/ Headquarters under Sub-Section (5) of Section
3 of-Was amenable to Writ jurisdiction of High Court.
I
These appeals by Special Leave and a petition for Special leave
arose out of different judgments of the High Court. The main issue
involved was whether the location of Revenue Mandal Headquarters in
the State of Andhra Pradesh under S. 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh
District (Formation) Act, 1974, was a purely governmental function,
not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court by individuals ~d
gram panchayats questioning the legality and propriety of the formation of certain Revenue Mandals and location of certain Mandal Headquarters notified i'n preliminary notification issued under sub-s. (5) of
Section 3 of the Act. In some cases, the High Court declined to interfere
E
with the location of Manda! Headquarters, holding that the government
was the best judge of the situation, or on the ground that there was a
breach of guidelines it directed the Government to reconsider the question of location of the Manda! Headquarters. In some cases, the High
Court quashed the final notification for location of the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place, holding that there ·was a breach of
F
guidelines based on the system ofmarkioli and also on the ground that
there were no reasons disclosed for deviating from the preliminary
notification for location of the Manda! Headquarters at another place.
Allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1987of1986 and
all other appeals and Special Leave Petitions directed against the judgG
men ts of the High Court, whereby the High Court had interfered, with
the location of the Manda! Headquarters, the Court,
HELD: It was difficult to sustain the interference by the' High
I
•
Court in some of cases with the location of the Manda! Headquarters
4'
and the quashing of the impugned notiticati<in on the ground that the
H
Government had acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or
694
J.R. RAGHUPATHY v. STATE OF A.P.
695
the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place
would promote general public convenience or that the Headquarters
should be fixed at a particular place with a view to developing the areas
surrounded by it or that merely because a particular person who was an
influential Member of Legislative Assembly belonging to the party in
opposition had the right of representation but faile<! to avail of it. The
location of Headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final
notification under sub-s (5) of s. 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 Gram Panchayats aud the general public, keeping
in view the relevant factors. Even assuming that any breach of the
guidelines for the location of the Manda! Headquarters was justiciable,
the utmost that the High Court could have done was to quash the
impugned notification in a particular case and direct the Government to
reconsider the question. There was no warrant for the High Court to
have gone further and direct the shifting of the Manda! Headquarters at
a particular place. (71IB-E]
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 for formation of a Revenue Man•
A
B
c
D
dal or for the location of its Headquarters keeping in view the broad
guidelines laid down in Appendix I to the White Paper issued by the
Government laying down the broad guidelines. The guidelines had no, E
statutory force and they had also not been published in the Official
Gazette. They were mere departmental instructions for the Collectors.
The ultimate decision as .to the formation of a Revenue Manda! or
location of its Headquarters

## Text

_Characters 0–39,938 of 77,289. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39938 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
J.R. RAGHUPATHY, ETC.
v.
STATE OF A.P. & ORS. ETC.
JULY 28, 1988
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974-Whether location of Revenue Manda/ Headquarters under Sub-Section (5) of Section
3 of-Was amenable to Writ jurisdiction of High Court.
I
These appeals by Special Leave and a petition for Special leave
arose out of different judgments of the High Court. The main issue
involved was whether the location of Revenue Mandal Headquarters in
the State of Andhra Pradesh under S. 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh
District (Formation) Act, 1974, was a purely governmental function,
not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court by individuals ~d
gram panchayats questioning the legality and propriety of the formation of certain Revenue Mandals and location of certain Mandal Headquarters notified i'n preliminary notification issued under sub-s. (5) of
Section 3 of the Act. In some cases, the High Court declined to interfere
E
with the location of Manda! Headquarters, holding that the government
was the best judge of the situation, or on the ground that there was a
breach of guidelines it directed the Government to reconsider the question of location of the Manda! Headquarters. In some cases, the High
Court quashed the final notification for location of the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place, holding that there ·was a breach of
F
guidelines based on the system ofmarkioli and also on the ground that
there were no reasons disclosed for deviating from the preliminary
notification for location of the Manda! Headquarters at another place.
Allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1987of1986 and
all other appeals and Special Leave Petitions directed against the judgG
men ts of the High Court, whereby the High Court had interfered, with
the location of the Manda! Headquarters, the Court,
HELD: It was difficult to sustain the interference by the' High
I
•
Court in some of cases with the location of the Manda! Headquarters
4'
and the quashing of the impugned notiticati<in on the ground that the
H
Government had acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or
694
J.R. RAGHUPATHY v. STATE OF A.P.
695
the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place
would promote general public convenience or that the Headquarters
should be fixed at a particular place with a view to developing the areas
surrounded by it or that merely because a particular person who was an
influential Member of Legislative Assembly belonging to the party in
opposition had the right of representation but faile<! to avail of it. The
location of Headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final
notification under sub-s (5) of s. 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 Gram Panchayats aud the general public, keeping
in view the relevant factors. Even assuming that any breach of the
guidelines for the location of the Manda! Headquarters was justiciable,
the utmost that the High Court could have done was to quash the
impugned notification in a particular case and direct the Government to
reconsider the question. There was no warrant for the High Court to
have gone further and direct the shifting of the Manda! Headquarters at
a particular place. (71IB-E]
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 for formation of a Revenue Man•
A
B
c
D
dal or for the location of its Headquarters keeping in view the broad
guidelines laid down in Appendix I to the White Paper issued by the
Government laying down the broad guidelines. The guidelines had no, E
statutory force and they had also not been published in the Official
Gazette. They were mere departmental instructions for the Collectors.
The ultimate decision as .to the formation of a Revenue Manda! or
location of its Headquarters was with the Government. It was for that
reason that the Government issued preliminary notification under sub-s
( 5) of section 3 of the Act. Deviation from the guidelines in some of the
F
aspects was usually for reasons of administrative convenience keeping
in view the purpose and object of the Act i.e. to bring the administration nearer to the people. There was nothing on record to show that the
,
decision of the Government in any of these cases was arbitrary or
capricious or was one not reached in good faith or actuated with impro'
per considerations or influenced by extraneous considerations. In a
G
matter like this, conferment of discretion upon the Government in the
matter of formation of a Revenue Manda! or location of its Headquarters 'in the nature of things necessarily leaves the Government with a
, •
choice in the use of the directions conferred upon it. (713A-F]
It was difficult to sustain the judgments of the High Court in the
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
A
cases where it had interfered with the location of Manna! Headquarters
and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government had acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other
was more centrally located or that location at the other place would
p~omote general public convenience or that the Headquarters should be
B
c
D
fixed at a particular place with a view to developing the area surrounded by it. 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 ancf
suggestions received from the local authorities like the gram panchayats
and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while
accepting the recommendations of the CaMnet Sub-Committee directed
that the Manda! Headquarters should be at one place rather than at
another place 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
administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did
not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners. The
petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitutions before the High
Court were dismissed. [723G-H; 724A-D]
Gram Panchayat, Chinna Madur & Ors. v. The Government of
Andhra Pradesh, [19861 l Andhra Weekly Reporter 362; C.J.
E
Fernandez v. State of Mysore & Ors., [19671 3 S.C.R. 636; Padfield v.
Minister of Agriculture Fisheries & Food, LR 1968 AC 997; Laker
Airways Ltd. v. Department of Trade, LR 1967 QB 643 at 705; Council
of Civil Service Unions and Others v. Minister for the Civil Service,
[1984] 3 All ER 935 (RL); Secretary of State for Education and Science
v. Tameside M.B.C., LR 1977 AC 1014; Breen v. Amalgamated
F
Engineering Union, LR 1971 2 QB 175 at 190; R. V. Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board, explain, [19671 2 QB 864 and Ridge v. Baldwin,
[19641AC40, referred to.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
1979-85 of 1986 etc. etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.2.1986/28.2.1986/49.1.
1986 and 5.2.1986 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos.
6063, 5379, 9908, 7836 and 5379 of1985.
Seetaramaiah, A.S. Nambyar, R.N. Keshwani, T.V.S.N.
H Chari, Ms. Vrinda Grover, S. Mudigonda, C.S. Vaidanathan, S.R.
i
•
J,
J.R. RAGHUPA1HY v. STATE OF A.P. [SEN, J.]
697
Sethia, Vimal Dave, B. Rajeshwara Rao, Jitendra Shanna, G.N. Rao,
T.c: Gupta, B.P. Sarathi, A. Subba Rao and B. Kanta Rao for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
SEN, J. These appeals by special leave and the connected B
special leave petitions directed against the various judgments and
orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court involve a question of principle, and relate to location of Manda! Headquarters in the State of
Andhra Pradesh Jnder s. 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974. The main issue involved is whether location of
Manda! Headquarters was a purely governmental function and therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. C
226 of the Constitution. In the present cases we are concerned with the
location of 12 Revenue Manda! Headquarters.
The avowed object and purpose of the Andhra Pradesh District
(Formation). Act, 1974, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh District D
(Formation) Amendment Act, 1985 as reflected in the long title, was
to bring about a change in the Revenue Administration with a view to
'bring the administration-nearer to the people and to make all public
services easily available to them'. The change in the Revenue
Administration was so achieved by the creation of Revenue Mandals
in place of taluks and firkas. The purpose of the legislat\on is brought E
out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, a relevant portion
whereof is as under:
'
"On a careful review of the socio.economic development
of the State· for the last 20 years the State Government felt
it necessary to take th\' administration nearer to the
F
people. It was of the opinion th~tthe only method to be
adopted by the Government, for a better Revenue Administration and to ·sen1e the interests of th1! people in a more
effective and suitable manner was by formation of the Mandals in place of taluks and firkas. It was of the view that a
decentralisation of administration ·and, reduction in its
G
levels 'Yould be conducive to a more efficient implementation of administration which brings the involvement of the
people, particularly in the implementation of several
welfare measures of the Government, and especially to uplift the conditions of the weaker sections of the society, It
also fel~ that there was urgent necessity to review its . H
698
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
activities and services and welfare programmes and that
they should be extended to the interior regions and that the
creation of Mandals with a population ranging from 35,000
to 55,000 based upon density of population would be an
effective method for providing better facilities to the
people at lesser cost and greaier convenience. The avowed
object was therefore to 'bring the administration nearer to
the people and to make all public services easily available
to them'. This was achieved by the creation of Revenue
Mandals in place of taluks and firkas."
To implement the decision of the Government, on 11th January,
1984 the Governor of Andhra Pradesh accordingly promulgated OrdiC nance No. 22 of 1984. This Ordinance was later replaced by Ordinance
No. 5 of .1985 inasmuch as the earlier Ordinance could· not be
reintroduced due to dissolution of the Legisiative Assembly. The Ordinance was later replaced by Act No. 14 of 1985. The change in
administration was brought about by amending s. 3 of the Act by
D introducing the word 'mandals' in place of taluks and firkas. Pursuant
to their powers under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Districts
(Formation) Act, as amended by Act 14 of 1985, the State Government, by notification published in the official gazette, after following
the procedure laid down in sub-s.(5) thereof divided the State for the
purpose of revenue administration into 23 Revenue District with such
E limits as specified therein. Each such district consisted of Revenue
Divisions and each Revenue Division consisted of Revenue Mandals.
The 23 districts now comprise of 1104 Revenue Mandals.
As many as 124 petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution were
filed in the High Court by individuals and gram panchayat questioning
F the legality and propriety of the formation of certain Revenue Mandals, and particularly location of Manda! Headquarters, abolition of
certain Mandals or shifting of Manda! Headquarters, as notified in the
preliminary notification issued under sub-s. (5) of s. 3, deletion and
addition of villages to certain mandals. Some of the writ petitions were
heard by one Division Berrch and the others by another, both the
G Benches being presided over by Reghuvir, J. who has delivered all the
judgments. Incidentally, there is no statutory provision relating to
location of Manda! Headquarters and the matter is governed by
GO Ms dated 25th July, 1985 issued by the State Government laying
J
down the broad guidelines for the formation of Mandals and also for
, \
location of Manda! Headquarters. The learned Judges upheld the valH jdity of formation of Mandals as also the aforesaid GOMs and in some
J.R. RAGHUPATHY v. STATE OF A.P. [SEN, J.]
699
cases they declined to interfere with the location of Manda! HeadA
quarters holding that the Government was the best judge of the situation or on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines, and
directed the Government to reconsider the question of location of
Manda! Headquarters .. However, in other cases the learned Judges
have gone a step further and quashed the final notification for location
of Manda! Headquarters at.a particular place holding that there was a
B
breach of the guidelines based on the system of marking and also on
..
the ground that there were no reasons disclosed for deviating from the
'
preliminary notification, and instead directed the Government to issue
a fresh notification for location of Manda! Headquarters at another
place. One of the arguments advanced before us in the cases where the
High Court has declined to interfere is that both the High Court and c
the State Government should have applied a uniform standard in dealing with the question and generally it is said that the State Government
I
should at any rate have adhered to the guidelines in fixing the location
of Manda! Headquarters without being guided by extraneous considerations.
D
Myriad are the facts. It is not necessary for us to delve into the
facts in any detail. It would suffice for our purposes to touch upon the
facts in some of the cases to present the rather confusing picture
emerging as a result of conflicting directions made by the High Court.
It appears that Raghuvir, J. relied upon the underlying principle
emerging from his earlier decision delivered on behalf of himself and
E
Sriramulu, J. in the Gram Panchayat, Chinna Madur & Ors. v. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter
362 which he calls as the 'Chandur principle'. Tn that case following the
earlier decision of the High Court where a place called Chandur was
not shown in the preliminary notification for formation of a taluk, but
was chosen to be the place of location of the Taluk Headquarters in the
F
final notification, it was held that in such a case publication of the final
notification could not be sustained and it was for the Government to
give reasons for such deviation. The decision proceeded on the principie that where guidelines are issued regulating the manner in which a
discretionary power is to be exercised, the Government is equally
bound by the guidelines. If the guidelines were violated, it was for the
G
Government to offer explanation as to why the guidelines were
deviated from. We are afraid, there is no such inflexible rule of universal application. The learned Judges failed to appreciate that 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. On the basis of such guidelines the Collectors
H
I '
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
A were asked to forward proposals for formation of Revenue Mandals
and for location of Manda! Headquarters. The proposals so forwarded
by the Collectors were processed in the Secretariat in the light of the
suggestions and objections received in response to the preliminary
notification issued under s. 3(5) of the Act and then placed before a
Cabinet Sub Committee. The ultimate decision as to the place of
B
location of Manda! Headquarters was for the Government to take. It
cannot be said that in any of the cases the action of the Government
for location of such Manda! Headquarters was ma/a fide or in bad faith
••
or that it proceeded on extraneous consideration. Nor can it be said
•.
that the impugned action would result in arbitrariness or absence of
fairplay or discrimination.
c
We must next refer to the facts in a few illustrative cases. In the
Gram Panchayat, Chinna Madur's case, although in the preliminary
notification issued under s. 3(5) of the Act for formation of Devarup·
palla Manda!, Chinna Madur was proposed as the Manda! Headquarters, the Revenue authorities in the final notification declared
D
Devaruppalla as the Manda! Headquarters. In the writ petition, the
High Court produced the records and it showed that both Devarup·
, ..
palla and Chinna Madur provided equal facilities as to communication, transport, veterinary hospital, bank, school etc. and secured 15
·marks each. The Government preferred Devaruppalla as Chinna
1Madur was fo~ccessible in some seasons as that village was divided by
E
twq rivers from rest of the villages. Devaruppalla besides is· located on
Hyperabad-Suryapet Highway which was considered to be a factor in
its favour. After reiterating the Chandur principle that it is for the
Goyernment, to give reasons for ·such deviation, the learned Judges
declined to interfere, observing:
F
"In the instant case, the record produced shows the
authorities considered the comparative merits of Devarup·
I
palla and Chinna Madur. The Revenue authorities applied
the correct indicia of accessibility in all seasons. Other
facilities of the two villages were discussed at length in the
record. Having regard to the overwhelmin_g features in
. G
favour of Devaruppalla the village was declared as headquarters."
~
We have referred to the facts of this case because it highlights the
approach of the High Court and it hos •ssumed to itself the function of the
~
Government in weighing the comparative merits and demerits in the
H matter of location of the Manda! ~eadquarters.
,, ..
J.R. RAGHUPATIIY v. STATE OF A.P. !SEN, J.J
701
The same infirmity unfortunately permeates through some of the
A
judgments where the High Court has interfered. In some of the cases
· the High Court has gone furt!ter and not only quashed the impugned
· · notification for location of the Mandal Headquarters at a particular
place but also directed the shifting to another place. In Civil Appeals
Nos. 1980 and 1985 of 1986, in formation of Gollamamidada Manda!,
Gollamamidada was shown as the proposed Headquarters in the
priliminary notification, but Pedapudi was selected to be the place of
Headquarters in the final notification. Goll"'!?-amidada secured 23
marks as compared to 18 marks secured by Pedllpudi. The C:ollector
relaxed the guideline because, it was stated, 12 out of 17 Panchayat
· opted for Pedapudi to be the Headquarters presumably because
Gollamamidada was at one end of the Mandal and out of 17 villages
comprised in the Mandal, 10 villages were at a distance of 7 to 14
kilometres and there were no proper travelling facilities and therefore
B
c
it was beyond the reach of the common man. Allowing the writ petition, the High Court observed: "On evaluation ol the sketch, we hold
that neither of the two villages is centrally located". It went on to say
that "the guidelines prescribed by the Government bind the GovernD
ment and cannot be relaxed and there was no reason forthcoming for.
supersession of the claim of the village Gollamamidada by Pedapudi."
Although the Cabinet Sub Committee had directed the vari~tion on
grounds of administrative convenience and for the reason that 12 ol:it
of 17 Gram Panchayats had resolved that Pedapudi should be the
Headquarters, the High Court quashed the notification saying that the
resolution of the Gram Panchayat might be relevant fpr consideration,
but in law it was not decisive of the question. It furth~r observed that
there was no explanation as to why the place of location as specified in
the preliminary notlficat!oμ was varied and accordiitgly directed the
shifting of Headquarters to Gollamamidada' We find it difficult to
subs.cribe to this line of reasoning adopted by the High Court.
In Civil Appeals Nos. 1982 and 1987 of 1986, the judgment of the
High Court suffers from the same infirmity. In the preliminary as well
E
F
as final notification, for formation of Kalher Revenue Mandal, Kalher
was declared to the Mandal Headquarters. Kalher secured 14 marks as
against Sirgapur .which secured 22 marks. The High Court quashed the G
notification for location of the Headquarters at kalher and directed the
shifting of the Headquarters to Sirgapur on the basis of the Collector's
note appended to the file which stated:
"As per the guidelines, the Mandal Headquarters may
have to be fixed at Sirgapur and not at-Kalher. Sirgapur has H
702
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
scored 22 points whereas the score of Kalher is only 14.
Sirgapur is undoubtedly the zone of influence for this
Manda!. Moreover, Sirgapur is centrally located and has
better road connections with the rest of the villages,
besides having maximum infrastructural facilities."
B
The High Court observed that no record was produced as to why
c
D
E
F
the Government did not act on the note placed on the file.
It will serve no useful purpose to delineate the facts in all the
cases which follow more or less on the same lines. We are of the
opinion that the High Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over
the decision of the State Government to locate the Manda! Headquarters at a particular place. The decision to locate such
Headquarters at a particular village is dependent upon various factors.
The High Court obviously could not evaluate for itself the comparative
merits of a, particular place as against the other for location of the
Manda! Headquarters. In some of the cases the High Court decliried to
interfere saying that the Government was the best judge of the situation in the matter of location of Manda! Headquarters. However, in a
few cases the High Court while quashing the impugned notifications
for location of Manda! Headquarters issued under sub-s. (5) of s. 3 of
the Act on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines,
directed the Government to reconsider the questiop after hearing the
parties.
We have had the benefit of hearing learned counsel for the
parties on various aspects of this branch of administrative law as to the
nature and scope of the guidelines and whether their non-observance
was justiciable. The learned counsel with their usual industry placed
before us a large number of authorities touching upon the subject. On
the view that we take, it is not necessary for us to refer to them all.
Shri T.V.S.N. Chari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State Government followed by Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Shri U.R. Lalit and
Shti C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
G
in cases where the High Court has interfered have, in substance, contended that suitability as to the location of Manda! Headquarters is for
the Government to decide and not for the High Court. They contend
that the High Court failed to view the case from a proper perspective.
According to them, the guidelines are executive instructions, pure and
simple, and have no statutory force. It was pointed out that there is no
H statutory provision made either in the Act or the Rules framed thereI
.,
J.R. RAGHUPATHY v. STATE OF A.P. [SEN. J.]
703
under laying down the manner in which the location of the Headquarters of a Revenue Manda! was to be made. The Legislature has
left the matter of selection of a place to be the Manda! Headquarters to
the discretion of the State Government and it was purely a Governmental function based on administrative convenience. The Government accordingly issued a White Paper laying down the broad
guidelines as contained in Appendix I thereto. The Collector were
required to forward their proposals for formation of Revenue Mandals
indicating the place where the Headquarters should be located in accordance with the principles laid down in the guidelines based on a
system of marking. Although the Collectors were required to propose
the location of Manda! Headquarters at a particular place on a system
A
B
of marking, but that was ·not determinative of the question. If the
C
marks were to be the sole criterion, then there was no question of
inviting objections and suggestions. The ultimate decision therefore
lay with the Government and in making the selection the Government
had the duty to ensure that the place located for location of Manda!
Headquarters promoted administrative convenience and further the
object and purpose of the legislation in bringing about a change in the
Revenue administration viz. (i) to bring the administration nearer to
the people and (ii) to make all public services easily available to them,
the main criterion as laid down in the guidelines being suitability and
accessibility. Further, the learned counsel contended that the High
Court was clearly in error in substituting its judgment for that of the
State Government. Non-observance of the guidelines which were in
the nature of executive instructions was not justiciable. In any event,
the High Court could not have issued a direction requiring the Government to shift the Headquarters of a Revenue Manda! from a particular
place to another place on its own evaluation of the comparative merits
and demerits merely on the basis of marking. The learned counsel
relied upon G.J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1967] 3 SCR
636 and other decisions taking the same view.
We had an equally persuasive reply to these arguments. Shri
Seetaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for th.e respondents in cases
where the High Court has interfered, advanced the main argument on
D
E
F
the legal aspect with much learning and resource and placed all the
G
authorities on this abstruse branch of administrative law, namely, the
Courts have albeit the Governmental action which involves exercise of
discretionary powers, control over the exercise of such Governmental
power by implying limits of reasonableness, relevance and purpose.
Judicial control over the executive, or over an administrative authority, must be maintained. Such judicial control by necessary impliH
A
B
c
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
cation is reconciled with legislative intent, .. on the premise that the
legislature never intended that the Government should have unfettered control over a certain area .. He drew our attention ·to several
recent English decisions which manifest a definite shift in the attitude
of the Courts to increase their control over discretion. According to
the learned counsel, the traditional position is that Courts will control
the existence and extent of prerogative power i.e. governmental
power, but not the manner of exercise thereof.' What degree or
standard of control would then be exercised would depend· upon the
type of subject-matter in issue. He submits that there is increasing
willingness of the Courts to assert their power to scrutinise the factual
bases upon which discretionary powers have been exercised.
It is said that the Court is not powerless to intervene where the
decision of the Government is reached by taking into account factors
that were legally irrelevant or by using its power in a way calculated to
frustrate the policy of the Act. It follows that the nature and object of
the status had to be considered to determine the area of power possesD sed. It is urged that.the remedy of a writ of mandamus is available if a
decision is reached by the Government on the basis of irrelevant considerations or improper purposes or for other misuse of power. Upon
that premise, he does not accept that the High Court had no juiisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the State Government for
the location of the Headquarters of a Revenue Manda! under Art. 226
E
of the Constitution. Substantially, the argument is that the guidelines
framed by the State Government have~ statutory force inasmuch as
the power to issue such "administrative directions or instructions to the
Collectors is conferred_ by the provisions of the Act itself. Alternatively, he says that even though a non-statutory rule, bye-law or
,,
ili~ruction may be changed by the authority who ma"de it without any
Fformality and it cannot ordinarily be enforced through a Court of law,
·
the party aggiieved by its non-enforcement m_ay nevertheless get relief
under Art. 226 of the Constitution where the !!On-observance of the
non-statutory rule or practice would result in arbitrariness or absence
of fairplay or discrimination, particularly where the authority making
such n'on-statutory rule-or the like-comes within the definition of
G
'State' under Art. 12. In substance, the contention is that the principle
laid down in the classical decision of the House of Lords in Padfield v.
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, LR 1968 AC 997 that the
Courts will control the exercise of statutory powers by the Minister,
\
still prevails over exercise of discretionary powers by the Government.
The general approach now is for the Courts to require that the.Govern-
'H
men! must produce reasonable grounds for its action, even where the
/
J.R. RAGHUPATHY v. STATE OF A.P. [SEN, J.]
705
jurisdictional fact is subjectively framed. He drew our attention to the
observations of Lord Denning M.R. in Laker Airways Ltd. v. Department of Trade, LR 1977 QB 643 at p. 705 to the effect:
"The prerogative is a discretionary power exercisable by
the executive government for the public good, in certain
spheres of governmental activity for which the law has
made no provision, such as the war prerogative (of requisitioning property for the defence of the realm), or the treaty
prerogative (of making treaties with foreign powers). The
law does not interfere with the proper exercise of the discretion by the executive in those situations: but it can set
limits by defining the bounds of the activity: and it can
intervene if the discretion is exercised improperly or mistakenly. That is a fundamental principle of our constitution."
•
*
*
•
A
B
c
"Seeing that the prerogative is a discretionary power to be
D
exercised for the public good, it follows that its exercise can
be examined by the courts just as any other discretionary
power which is vested in the executive. At several times in
our history' the executive have claimed that a discretion
given by the prerogative is unfettered: just as they have
claimed that a discretion given by statute or by regulation is
Eunfettered ........ The two outstanding cases are Pad-·
field v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (19681
AC 997 and Secertary of State for Education and Science v.
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, (1976) 3 WLR
641, where the House of Lords have shown that when discretionary powers are entrusted to the executive by statute,
F
the courts can examine the exercise of those powers to see
that they are used properly, and. not impropertly or
mistakely."
In order to appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary
to refer to the relevant statutory provisions bearing on the questions
G
involved. Sub-s. (1) of s. 3, as amended, is in these terms:
"3(1) The Government may, by notification, from time to
time, for the purposes of revenue administration, divide
the State into such disticts with such limits as may be
specified therein; and each district shall consist of silch
H
A
B
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
revenue divisions and each revenue division shall consist of
such mandals and each mandal shall consist of such villages
as the Government may, by notification from time to time,
specify in this behalf."
Sub-s. (2) thereof provides that the Government may, in the interests
of better administration and development of the areas, by notification
from time to time on and with effect on and from such date as may be
specified therein, form a new district, revenue division or mandal or
increase or diminish or alter their name. Sub-s. (4) empowers the
Board of Revenue in the interests of better administration and development of the areas and subject to such rules as may be prescribed, by
notification, group or amalgamate, any two or more revenue villages
01: portions thereof so as to form a single new revenue village or divide
any revenue village into two or more revenue villages, or increase or
diminish the area of any revenue village, or alter the boundaries or
name of any revenue village. Sub-s. (5) provides that before issuing
any notification under the section, the Government or the Board of
D
Revenue, as the case may be, shall (lUblish in such manner as may be
prescribed, the proposals inviting objections or suggestions thereon
from the person residing within the district, revenue division, taluk.
firka or village who are likely to be affected thereby within such period
as may be specified therein, and shall take into consideration the
E
objections or suggestions, if any, received. Sub-s. (1) of s. 4 enacts that
the Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out all
or any of the purposes of this Act. The rules so framed shall be laid
before each House of the State Legislature, etc.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the
Act, the State Government framed the Andhra Pradesh District
F
(Formation) Rules, 1984. The term 'Manda!' as defined in r. 2(iv)
means a part of the district within a revenue division under the charge
of a Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar. The expression 'revenue division'
is defined in r. 2(v) to mean a part of the district comprising of one or
more mandals under the charge of a Revenue Divisional Office_r/Sub
Collector/ Assistant Collector or any other officer placed in charge of a
G
division. The word 'village' in r. 2(vi) means a settlement or locality or
area consisting of cluster of habitations and the land belonging to their
proprietory inhabitants and includes, a town or city and a hamle.t
(Mazra). Rule 3 lays down the matters for consideration in formation
of districts, etc. Rules 4 and 5 provide for the publication of the preliminary and final notifications in the official gazette. Rule 3 insofar as
H material reads:
<·
.,
,_,
J.R. RAGHUPATIIY v. STATE OF A.P. (SEN, J.]
707
"3(1) Where any action is proposed to be taken by the
A
Government under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the Act
..... the Government ..... shall take into consideration
as far as may be the following matters and the views of the
Collectors of the districts and of such other authorities as
the Government may consider necessary>=
B
(i) Area, population, demand under the land re-
.,
venue and other revenues in respect of areas affected by
the proposals;
...
(ii) Historical association, Geographical contiguity,
Physical features common interests and problems, Cultural c
and Educational requirements, Infrastructural facilities
and economic progress of the areas;
(iii) Development of the area or areas concerned,
having regard to the various developments and welfare
schemes undertaken or contemplated by the Government
D
in relation to those areas;
(iv) Administrative convenience and better administration; and
'
(v) Interests of economy."
E
"3(3). In matters concerning sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) of s. 3
of the Act the Collector concerned shall forward to the
Government his report with his views together with the
record of enquiry if any for the consideration of the
Government. If after such consideration the Government
F
so decides, a preliminary notification under sub-s. (5) of
s. 3 of the Act inviting objections or suggestions to the proposals from the persons residing in the area/areas which are
likely to be affected thereby, shall be issued."
Sub-r. ( 1) of r. 4 provides for the manner of publication of the prelimiG
nary notification referred to in sub-rr. (3) and ( 4) of r. 3 inviting
objection_s or ·suggestions. The notification has to be in Form I
appended to the Rules. R. 4(2) provides that any person affected by
I.
the proposal may within thirty days from the date of publication of th<>
notification referred to _in sub-r. (1), communicate his objections or
su_ggestions thereto to the Secn:tary to the Government in the
H
A
B
c
D
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp.d S.C.R.
Revenue Department through the Collector of the district concerned,
who shall forward the same with his remarks to the Government, etc.
R. 5 provides that the Government shall having regard to the suggestions or objections referred to in r. 4 either confirm the preliminary
notification or issue it with such modification/modifications as may be
necessary and publish it in Form II of the Gazette .. A preliminary
notification under sub-s. (5) of s. 3 of the Act which has to be in Form I
has to notify to all concerned that the Government in the interests of
better administration and development of the area concerned, proposed to form a new district/revenue division/mandal as set out in the
schedule appended thereto. All objections and suggestions have to be
addressed to the Collector within whose jurisdiction the area or areas
fall. Likewise, Form II prescribes the form of the final notification to
the effect that the State Government having taken into consideration
the objections and suggestions received thereon, is pleased to notify
that with effect from (date) the State shall consist of the District/
Revenue Division/Manda! specified in Schedule I appended thereto.
There are no statutory provisions formulating the governing principles
for .formation of Revenue Mandals or for location of Manda!
Headquarters.
On 25th July, 1985 the State Government published a White
Paper on formation of Mandals. It was stated inter alia that the
Revenue Mandals would be formed covering urban as well as rural
E
areas unlike Panchayat Mandals which would cover only rural areas. A
Revenue Manda! would be demarcated for a population ranging from
35,000 to 55,000 in the case of rural mandals and was expected to cover
one-third to one-fourth the size of the existing taluks in areas and in
population. When a Municipality came within the area 'of a Revenue
Manda!, the urban population would be in addition. The ushering in of
F
rural mandals would result in introductions of a four-tier system by
replacement of the then existing five-tier system. Such reduction in the
levels of tiers of administration the Government felt would be more
conducive to proper implementation of the policies and programmes
of the Government. Greater decentralisation was expected to lead to
more intensive involvement of the people, particularly in the
G
implementation of programmes of economic development. According
to the scheme contemplated, each Revenue Manda! would be headed
by a Revenue Officer of the rank of a Tahsildar or a Deputy Tahsildar
and it was stated that the intention of the Government was to vest in
such Revenue Officers, all the powers that were till then exercised by
the Tahsildars and Taluk Magistrate. Appendix I to the White Paper
H formulated the principles for formation of Revenue Mandals and also
..
'
..
J.R. RAGHUPATHY v. STATE OF A.P. (SEN, J.J
709
laid down the broad guidelines for location of Manda! Headquarters.
The Collectors were· accordingly asked to forward their proposals for
creation of Revenue Mandals and also for location of Manda! Headquarters in conformity with the guidelines. The proposals were to be
duly notified by publication of a preliminary notification under subA
s. (5) of s. 3 of the Act inviting objections and suggestions and the
Government after consideration of the objections and suggestions so · B
received would publish the. final notification.