This Case commentary is written by Vishal Tomar, a Fifth- Year law student of the Sardar Patel Subharti Institute Of Law, Meerut

CASE DETAILS:

· COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

· EQUIVALENT CITATION: 1988 AIR 1681,

· DATE OF JUJUDGMENT: 28 Jul 1988

· BENCH INVOLVED: Sen, A.P. (J)

PARTIES

·PETITIONER: J.R. RAGHUPATHY, ETC.

· RESPONDENTS: STATE OF A.P. & ORS. ETC.

STATUTE:

· THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

· ANDHRA PRADESH DISTRICTS (FORMATION) ACT, 1974

BOOKS: -

· ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: I.P. MASSEY

INTRODUCTION

A state being a humongous entity comprised of various elements and notions, is circumstantially dynamic and it is quite challenging to deal with such changing scenarios and exigencies. India is a politically, socially, linguistically, and economically diversified country, and reconciling the differences or discrepancies is not that smooth, the legislation or statutes alone can’t do away with it. Such exigencies and contingencies necessitated the formulation and promulgation of administrative directions.

Administrative Directions are instructions or regulations issued by the higher authorities to the lower authorities in the absence of a rule or enactment about a specific issue or to compensate or fill the lacunas in the existing laws thereby constructing better standards or platforms to tackle issues. Administrative directions are otherwise designated as ‘Administrative quasi-law’ or ‘Administrative quasi-legislations’. These directions can be specific, formulated, and applied to a particular purpose, or a particular case; or they may be general, laying down general principles, policies, practices, or procedures to be followed in similar cases. And further, these directions are issued in the form of letters, circulars, orders, public notices, pamphlets, press notes, etc, it is even published in Government Gazette.

In contemporary India, the government enjoys indefinite or boundless administrative powers, and therefore the areas of issuing administrative directions are quite ample. The concept of administrative directions has its roots in Article 73 and Article 162 of the constitution, they serve as the substratum. These Articles deal with administrative powers of Government and such directions are generally issued under it. According to Article 73, the executive power of the Union extends to the matters concerning which Parliament has the power to make laws. Similarly, according to Article 162, the executive power of the State extends to the matters concerning which the State Legislative has the power to make laws. These provisions exclusively deal with the executive power of government and do not confer any kind of legislative power. At times, statutory powers are granted to issue directions. A direction issued under statutory power prevails over a direction issued under general administrative power. In the case of Secretary to the Government of Haryana v Vidya Sagar, where two circulars are issued on the same subject and the former was general and the latter was specific, it was held that the latter one would prevail.

FACTS OF THE CASE

· The facts of the case state that Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court by individuals and gram panchayats questioning the legality and propriety of the formation of certain Revenue Mandals and location of certain Mandal Headquarters notified in the preliminary notification issued under sub-s. (5) of Section 3 of the Act.

· In some cases, the High Court declined to interfere with the location of Mandal 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 Mandal Headquarters.

· In some cases, the High Court quashed the final notification for the location of the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place, holding that there was a breach of guidelines based on the system of marking and also on the ground that there were no reasons disclosed for deviating from the preliminary notification for the location of the Mandal Headquarters at another place.

· Allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 1980, 1982, 1985, and 1987 of 1986 and all other appeals and Special Leave Petitions directed against the judgments of the High Court, whereby the High Court had interfered with the location of the Mandal Headquarters, the Court.

ISSUE RAISED

• Whether the location of Revenue Mandal Headquarters under Sub-Section (5) Of Section 3 is amenable to Writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

ARGUMENTS

• ARGUMEN BY PETITIONER

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in cases where the High Court has interfered have, in substance, contended that suitability as to the location of Mandal 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 statutory provision made either in the Act or the Rules framed there-

under laying down how the location of the Headquarters of a Revenue Mandal was to be made. The Legislature has left the matter of selection of a place to be the Mandal 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 Collectors were required to forward their proposals for the formation of Revenue Mandals indicating the place where the Headquarters should be located according to the principles laid down in the guidelines based on a system of marking. Although the Collectors were required to propose the location of Mandal Headquarters at a particular place on a system of marking, that was not determinative of the question. If the 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 Mandal 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 like 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 Mandal from a particular place to another place on its evaluation of the comparative merits and demerits merely based on marking. The learned counsel relied upon G.J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore & Ors[1]., [1967] 3 SCR 636, and other decisions taking the same view.

• ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in cases where the High Court has interfered advanced the main argument on the legal aspect with much learning and resource and placed all the authorities on this abstruse branch of administrative law, namely, the Courts have albeit the Governmental action which involves the 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 administrative authority, must be maintained. Such judicial control by necessary implication 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 that 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 subject matter in issue. He submits that there is an increasing willingness of the Courts to assert their power to scrutinize 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 legally irrelevant account factors 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 possessed. It is urged that the remedy of a writ of mandamus is available if a decision is reached by the Government based on irrelevant considerations or improper purposes or for other misuse of power. Upon that premise, he does not accept that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the State Government for the location of the Headquarters of a Revenue Mandal under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Substantially, the argument is that the guidelines framed by the State Government have a statutory force since 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 instruction may be changed by the authority who made it without any formality and it cannot ordinarily be enforced through a Court of law, the party aggrieved by its non-enforcement may nevertheless get relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution where the non-observance of the non-statutory rule or practice would result in arbitrariness or absence of fair play or discrimination, particularly where the authority making such non-statutory rule or the like- comes within the definition of '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 the exercise of discretionary powers by the Government. The general approach now is for the Courts to require that the Government must produce reasonable grounds for its action, even where the jurisdictional fact is subjectively framed.

JUDGEMENT

These appeals by special leave and the connected special leave petitions directed against the various judgments and orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court involve a question of principle and relate to the location of Mandal Headquarters in the State of Andhra Pradesh under S. 3 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974. The main issue involved is whether the location of Mandal Headquarters was a purely governmental function and therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, we are concerned with the location of 12 Revenue Mandal Headquarters.

THE avowed object and purpose of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Amendment Act, 1985 as reflected in the long title, was to bring about a change in the Revenue Administration 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 legislation is brought out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, a relevant portion whereof is as under: & quote; 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 the administration nearer to the people. It was thought that the only method to be adopted by the government for a better revenue administration and to serve the interests of the people more effectively and suitably was the formation of the Mandals in place of taluks and forks.

It was of the view that decentralisation of administration and reduction in its levels would 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 felt that there was an urgent necessity to review its activities and services and welfare programs that they should be extended to the interior regions and that the creation of Mandalas with a population ranging from 35,000 to 55,000 based upon the density of population would be an effective method for providing better facilities to the people at lesser cost and greater convenience. The 23 districts now comprise 1104 revenue mandals.

The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs, of Rs.2,000/- in each case.

CASE COMMENT

In this case writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records about the order of 2011 of the central administrative tribunal and quash the same and also to direct the authorities to restore the petitioner in service and to pay all the consequential benefits.

It is rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government 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 promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place to develop the area surrounded by 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 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 panchayats 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 a place 'Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ like 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 favor of the writ petitioners.

The result therefore is that Civil Appeals 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. The petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

CONCLUSION

The principle of non-enforceability of administrative directions is illustrated in the case of J R Raghupathy v State of Andhra Pradesh, here the state government had the statutory power to decide the locations of mandal headquarters. Subsequently, the government asked the Collectors to send proposals for this purpose for consideration by the Government. The Government issued certain guidelines to the Collectors to keep in view while making proposals. Subsequently, there arose a question as to the nature and enforceability of the guidelines issued by the Government. Supreme Court held that guidelines were not enforceable as these were merely departmental instructions meant for the Collectors to regulate how they should formulate their proposal and had no statutory force.

A direction does not confer any enforceable rights on an individual, or impose an obligation on the Administration or individual. Even if a direction is misapplied or ignored by the Administration, the affected individual can hardly claim a remedy through a court of law. But, this doesn’t mean that administrative authorities may disregard them with impunity. The authorities are expected to follow the directions and their breach by them may lead to discipline.

At this point, it is essentially relevant to consider the concept of Delegated Legislation, as it is an equally relevant and superior concept that comes under the administrative powers of government. Similar to Administrative directions, delegated legislations or rules are also formulated for the same purpose or under such circumstances, but unlike directions, they are not made under the executive power conferred on government, rather these rules are formulated by the legislative powers conferred on the administrative bodies via constitutional or statutory provisions. As mentioned above, delegated legislation is superior in authority to a direction in the legal hierarchy. The main point of this disparity in authority can be attributed to the well-established enforceability of rules or delegated legislation. That is, delegated legislation is binding on both, the Administration and the individual and is enforceable through a court of law. On the other hand, administrative directions as discussed in the above paragraph are not so binding and enforceable. Though minor remedies are made available to render the individual secure, the point remains valid that the remedy available to the individual is intra-departmental or administrative, not through a court of law.

References

1. Legalserviceindiahttps://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-477-administrative-direction.html (visited on 03 September 2024)

2. Legal authority.in J.R. Raghupathy, Etc. Vs State of A.P. & Ors. Etc. - Legal Authority ( visited on 04 September 2024)

3. lawyer J.R. Raghupathy, Etc vs State Of A.P. & Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1988 – LAWFYI.IO( visited on 05 September 2024)

4. J.R. Raghupathy Etc V. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others 1988( 03 September 2024)

5. INDIANKANOON.ORG J.R. Raghupathy, Etc vs State Of A.P. & Ors. Etc on 28 July 1988 (indiankanoon. org)(visited on 03 September 2024)

[1] [1967] SCR 636