Special Leave Petition Civil No 7508 of 1988
From the Judgment and order dated 2861988 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 800 of 1988
728 SN Kacker UR Lalit VD Joshi BD Joshi SC Bora and Kailash Vasdev for the Petitioner
Dr YS Chitale VA Bobde VJ Francis NM Popli and Miss Almjit Chauhan for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated June 28 1988 upholding the election of respondents nos
1 and 2 Dr Shantaram Kale and Takiqui Hassan as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively and respondents nos
3 8 as Members of the Standing Committee at the first meeting of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation at the Alankar Hall held on May 6 1988 at 2 pm
The issue involved is whether the first meeting of the Corporation called for that day at 245 pm by the Municipal Commissioner respondent No 9 who presided over the meeting was adjourned for the day or adjourned sine die and therefore had to be called on some subsequent date to be fixed by him and thus necessitated the giving of seven days  clear notice as required by r 1h Chapter II of the Rules framed under section 453 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949
Since the question involved was a matter of moment and the affidavits filed by the petitioner Chandrakant Khaire the leader of the Shiv Sena Party which is the largest single group in the Corporation consisting of 18 Concillors and by some of the Councillors as well as their supporters and the affidavits in opposition filed by the Party in power Congress I which has formed a coalition with the splinter groups commanding a majority of 32 Councillors in a House of 60 raise controverted facts as to whether the proceedings of the meeting had been adjourned sine die or merely suspended we thought it better to have the minutes of the proceedings before us
Shri Vinod Bobde learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Commissioner has placed the minute books written in Marathi along with a translation thereof in English
At the last occasion we were left with the impression that the word used by the Municipal Commissioner was tahkub  while adjourning the meeting at 245 pm amidst unprecedented scenes of complete disorder commotion and pendemonium
We now find the word used in the minutes is sthagit  but in the translation furnished the word used is adjourned 
The facts revealed in the counter affidavits filed by the Munici 729 pal Commissioner Collector and the Superintendent of Police show that a serious law and order situation had arisen due to which both the Collector and the Superintendent of Police had to rush to the venue of the meeting
They both have sworn to the fact that not only the Councillors but many outsiders were present in the hall where the meeting was being held
There were also a large number of supporters of the rival parties spectators and journalists
The Municipal Commissioner was surrounded by some 20 25 persons apart from the Councillors one group insisting upon the meeting being adjourned for the day ie the Councillors belonging to the majority Shiv Sena Party while the other group consisting of the Congress I Party and the splinter groups forming the coalition demanding that the meeting be continued
The Collector has sworn to the fact that there was total confusion and bedlam inside the hall apart from the fact that the entire atmosphere was surcharged with commotion  and no business could be transacted
He has further sworn to the fact that respondent No 9 the Municipal Commissioner the presiding officer appeared to be in a very agitated state of mind  and told him that he could not hold the meeting in the unruly and disorderly situation prevailing and complained that despite his repeated requests to the Councillors to maintain peace it had no effect and they kept on shouting raising slogans and fighting amongst themselves and thereby making it impossible for him to transact any business
The meeting was scheduled to be held at 2 pm and respondent No 9 announced that the polling for the offices of Mayor Deputy Mayor and Members of the Standing Committee would commence from 230 pm onwards
What happened thereafter reveals a very disturbing feature which unfortunately has become too common these days and shows the strain through which our democratic system is passing
At about 230 pm some of the Councillors belonging to the Shiv Sena Party sat on the ballot boxes and others belonging to that Party and its supporters surrounded the Municipal Commissioner demanding that the meeting be adjourned to a subsequent date
Thereupon the Councillors belonging to the Party in power ie Congress I started shouting at him that the meeting be held later on that day being apprehensive that if the meeting were to be adjourned they might lose the contest
There followed shouting of slogans hurling of abuses and thumping of the tables
The Councillors belonging to the rival groups then started throwing chairs at each other leading to a pandemonium
That the fact that not only Councillors but also many outsiders were present in the hall where the meeting was being held who really had no business to be there is clearly brought out in the affidavits sworn by the Municipal 730 Commissioner Collector and the Superintendent of Police
They also show a large number of persons freely entering and leaving the hall
It is apparent from the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police that during the time when all this happened Viswasrao Deshmukh Revenue Minister Government of Maharashtra came into his office and left the premises while he was actually busy in supervising the bandobust
We have been shown photographs showing the presence of a large number of policemen wielding lathis inside the hall
The Collector s affidavit reveals that the Superintendent of Police personally requested Chagan Bhujbal a sitting Member of the State Legislative Assembly belonging to the Shiv Sena Party to keep himself away from the premises of the meeting hall
Be that as it may it appears that both the officers asked the outsiders to clear out of the hall requested the Councillors to take their places so as to permit the Municipal Commissioner to transact the business for the day and brought the situation under control
They have sworn to the fact that after the Councillors had calmed down and order was restored both of them left the hall
Thereafter the Municipal Commissioner apparently announced on the mike that the meeting would continue and the elections would be held at 430 pm
The petitioner Chandrakant Khaire being the leader of the Shiv Sena Party filed a written protest at 415 pm that the meeting had been adjourned by the Municipal Commissioner for the day and therefore the holding of the meeting later on that day would be improper and illegal
After this the Councillors belonging to the opposition group abstained from participating in the meeting held at 430 pm at which respondents nos
1 and 2 Dr Shantaram Kale and Takiqui Hassan were declared elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively and respondents nos
3 8 as Members of the Standing Committee each of them having polled 32 votes
We had benefit of hearing Shri SN Kacker learned counsel for the petitioner Dr YS Chitale learned counsel appearing for respondents nos
1 8 and Shri Vinod Bobde learned counsel appearing for respondent No 9 the Municipal Commissioner
After a protracted hearing we at the end of the day reserved orders
Having given the matter our anxious consideration we find it difficult to interfere with the judgment of the High Court
In view of the conflicting affidavits the petitioner and his supporters asserting that the Municipal Commissioner had adjourned the meeting for the day and respondent No 2 reiterating the version of the Municipal Commissioner that he had only suspended the proceedings so that the meeting could be held later in the day and the business for 731 the day namely election of the Mayor Deputy Mayor and Members of the Standing Committee could be transacted the High Court relying on the preponderance of probabilities  has come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances the affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner respondent No 9 appeared to be more impressive probable and convincing  and therefore they were inclined to accept it as one inspiring confidence 
Acting upon the affidavit sworn by respondent No 9 the Municipal Commissioner the High Court has found as a fact that the meeting was not adjourned for the day or sine die but it was to be held as soon as peace was restored on the very day ie the meeting had only been postponed
That is an inference drawn from affidavits and we find no just and compelling reasons to upset the same
Shri SN Kacker learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the High Court erred in proceeding on probabilities in deciding the present matter which has far reaching ramifications affecting the democratic principles
It is said that the High Court having found that because of unruly and provocative atmosphere prevailing in the meeting hall the Municipal Commissioner was required to adjourn the meeting in order to restore peace and to re arrange the furniture which was helter skelter as the Councillors it is stated threw chairs at each other erred in taking the view that the meeting was not adjourned for the day or sine die but had merely been suspended when in fact the business for the day namely elections to the offices of Mayor Deputy Mayor and Members of the Standing Committee could not obviously be transacted
He further contended that when the Municipal Commissioner on his own showing had to adjourn the proceedings in view of the prevailing atmosphere and since he felt it was impossible to continue the election process in that situation it was wrongly held by the High Court that the meeting was not adjourned sine die when the Municipal Commissioner unequivocally admits that such adjournment was necessary to enable him to decide and announce the time for the resumption of the further proceedings
In substance the contention is that the meeting was not adjourned to a definite point of time and must therefore be regarded as adjourned for the day or adjourned sine die
The learned counsel referred to several law dictionaries to bring out the meaning of the expression adjourned sine die  and relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Smt
Menaka Bala Dasi vs Hiralal Gobindalal  Anr and that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sheokumar Shashtri vs Municipal Committee Rajnandgaon AIR 1964 MP 195 and also to a passage from Shackleton on the Law  Practice of Meetings 7th edn
at p 44 for the 732 submission that in the case of adjournment sine die the meeting stands adjourned to an unspecified date and as such a fresh notice calling for the meeting is necessary
Dr YS Chitale appearing for respondents nos
1 8 and Shri Vinod Bobde for respondent No 9 on the other hand contended that the meeting had not been adjourned sine die but the proceedings had merely been suspended at 245 pm and the adjourned meeting at 430 pm was a continuation of the original meeting and no new notice of an adjourned meeting had to be given
It was contended further that there was no warrant for interference under article 136 of the Constitution since a finding of fact has been reached by the High Court on a consideration of the Material on record
It was also contended that the petitioner having failed to make good the averment in the writ petition that the meeting had been adjourned for the day  the High Court was justified in declining to interfere
In order to appreciate the point in controversy it is necessary to set out the relevant statutory provisions bearing on the question
It is needless to stress that a Municipal Corporation cannot function without the Mayor Deputy Mayor and Members of the Standing Committee who are entrusted with certain functions and duties under the Act
Sub section
1 of section 19 of the Act provides that the Corporation shall at its first meeting after the general elections    elect from amongst the Councillors one of its members to be the Mayor and another to be the Deputy Mayor  their term of office being one year
Sub section
2 of section 20 enacts that the Corporation shall at its first meeting after the general elections appoint 12 persons out of its own body to be Members of the Standing Committee 
The term of office of the elected Councillors as provided by section 61 is a period of five years which in terms of sub section 2 is deemed to commence on the date of the first meeting called by the Municipal Commissioner
The relevant Rules framed under section 453 of the Act relating to the proceedings of the Corporation are as follows 1b
The first meeting of the Corporation after general elections shall be held as early as conveniently may be on a day and at a time and place to be fixed by the Commissioner and if not held on that day shall be held on some subsequent date to be fixed by the Commissioner 1h
At least seven clear days  notice shall ordinarily be given of every meeting other than any adjourned meeting 733 1m
Any meeting may with the consent of a majority of the councillors present be adjourned from time to time to a later hour on the same day or to any other but no business shall be transacted and except as is hereinafter provided no proposition shall be discussed at any adjourned meeting other than the business or proposition remaining undisposed of at the meeting from which the adjournment took place 23
The Presiding Officer may in case of grave disorder suspend the meeting for a period not exceeding three days
 It is therefore quite obvious that the first meeting of the Corporation is of prime importance
Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that clm may not govern the first meeting of the Corporation but relates to subsequent meetings
The question before us is whether the first meeting could not be held on that day  within the meaning of clb of r 1 and therefore had to be held on some subsequent date to be fixed by the Municipal Commissioner 
The affidavits on record clearly show that the Municipal Commissioner who presided over the meeting was constrained to adjourn the meeting at 245 pm when some of the Councillors belonging to the Shiv Sena Party of which the petitioner is the leader went inside the booth and forcibly removed the ballot boxes and sat upon them to prevent casting of any votes giving rise to commotion and pandemonium
What actually happened is best stated by the Municipal Commissioner in his affidavit As a result there was tremendous confusion chaos and uproar in the house and there was tremendous noise and nothing could be heard clearly
I say that there was tremendous tension and the situation was going out of control and it was not possible to conduct the election at the moment of time and therefore I announced that the meeting is adjourned and that the Councillors should restore peace
I also said that I shall soon announce the time of meeting
I say that I did not leave the house and remained in the chair of the Presiding Authority hoping that the peace would be restored and I would be able to announce the time of the meeting
Thereafter Shri Man Mohan Singh 734 Oberoi raised the point of order that the meeting should not be adjourned and that he along with another Councillor Dr Sancheti insisted that meeting should continue
At this stage the situation in the house worsened and in fact there was hot exchange of words and shouting between different groups of Councillors
An attempt was made to throw chairs at each other and in fact the furniture in the house was scattered and several Councillors surrounded me and some spoke in favour of adjournment and some spoke in favour of continuation
My efforts to restore peace and order were futile and there was serious law and order situation
In the circumstances aforesaid there was no alternative and I felt that it was my duty to seek the Police help and I called the Police to restore order
Thereupon some of the Councillors objected and actually resisted the entry of the Police
Thereafter on my directives the Police soon left
Some of the Shiv Sena Councillors were in aggressive mood and they came to my table and violently thumped the table and shouted that they would not allow this meeting to take place
During this period I even suggested that the Councillors should go out
This was necessary as I felt that without that the furniture cannot be re arranged and further steps for resuming the meeting will not be possible
In the meantime the District Magistrate Shri RR Sinha and Supdt
of Police Shri TC Wankhede entered the Hall
SP Shri Wankhede appealed the Councillors on the mike to restore peace
I say that discussions took place between myself and the Dist
Magistrate with a view to restore the peace
The Dist
Magistrate Shri Sinha also appealed to restore peace
Thereafter the Councillors were calmed down and the order was restored
On the peace being restored both the District Magistrate and the SP left the house at 345 pm
I announced on the mike that meeting would continue and election would be held at 430 pm    in effect the adjournment declared by me as aforesaid amounts to suspension of the meeting because of the grave disorder     735 I also said that I shall soon make an announcement about the time for resuming the meeting
   I had to adjourn the proceedings in view of the prevailing circumstances set out hereinabove and since I felt that it was impossible to continue the election process in that situation
It was also necessary to enable myself to decide and announce the time for the resumption of the further proceedings of the meeting
 While setting out the facts we have already adverted to the facts sworn by the Collector and the Superintendent of Police
There is no reason not to act on these affidavits
The Collector says that there was total confusion and bedlam inside the hall  apart from the fact that the entire atmosphere was surcharged with commotion  and the Municipal Commissioner was in a very agitated state of mind and said that he could not hold the meeting in the unruly and disorderly situation prevailing 
There can be no doubt that such unruly scenes witnessed on that day gave rise to a serious law and order situation but both the Collector and the Superintendent of Police were able to restore order in the House and prevailed upon the outsiders to vacate the meeting hall in order that the proceedings could be resumed
The fact that the Municipal Commissioner did not leave the House or vacate the seat does lend support to the version that he had merely suspended the proceedings till order was restored
There is no reason to doubt the affidavit sworn by the Municipal Commissioner that he announced on the mike at 345 pm that the proceedings would be resumed at 430 pm for transacting the business for the day
It is quite obvious that the meeting was not adjourned for the day  or adjourned sine die 
Shri Kacker learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the affidavits of the three officers showed that utter confusion prevailed and there was pandemonium all around with strangers moving about in the meeting hall it must necessarily follow that no business could be transacted on that day
The contention is that the meeting was not adjourned to a definite point of time and must therefore be regarded as adjourned for the day  or adjourned sine die 
He referred to the decisions in Menaka Bala Dasi and Sheokumar Shashtri as also to various law dictionaries besides a passage from Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings 7th edn
at p 44
On the strength of these authorities it was submitted that 736 the meeting was adjourned not to a definite point of time and must therefore be regarded as adjourned for the day  or adjourned sine die 
He accordingly submitted that the Municipal Commissioner should have fixed another date for the meeting and issued fresh notice therefor
We are afraid we cannot accept this line of reasoning
According to the ordinary meaning the expression sine die  as given in Shorter Oxford Dictionary 3rd edn vol
II at p 2000 means Without any day being specified for reassembling resumption of business etc indefinitely Similarly in Webster s Comprehensive Dictionary International edn the meaning given is more or less the same Without a day indefinitely an adjournment sine die that is without setting a day for ressembling
 The same is the legal meaning
In Black s Law Dictionary Deluxe 4th edn
at p 1556 the meaning of the expression sine die is Without day without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing The legal meaning given in Jowitt s Dictionary of English Law 2nd edn vol
II at p 1663 reads Without a day being fixed
The consideration of a matter is said to be adjourned sine die when it is adjourned without a day being fixed for its resumption
 The passage in Shackleton at p 44 on which the learned counsel relies reads Adjourned meetings Notice
An adjournment if bona fide is only a continuation of the meeting and the notice that was given for the first meeting holds good for and includes all the other meetings following up it
If however the meeting is adjourned sine die a fresh notice must be given
No new business can be introduced unless notice of such new business is given
 737 There can be no dispute with the proposition but the difficulty is about the applicability of that principle to the facts of the case
Literally there is nothing on record to substantiate the petitioner s submission that the first meeting scheduled to be held on May 6 1988 at 2 pm was adjourned for the day  or adjourned sine die  without transacting any business ie without consideration of the agenda for the day
On the contrary it is not in dispute that the business for the day was partly transacted when the Councillors met at 2 pm as scheduled and the Municipal Commissioner declared that the polling would commence from 230 pm onwards
The trouble started at 230 pm when the Councillors belonging to the petitioner s Shiv Sena Party prevented the casting of votes by snatching away the ballot boxes from the polling booths and sat upon them
There was a pre determined plan on their part not to allow the first meeting to be held on that day
But the Municipal Commissioner did not give way to the commotion and pandemonium and he did not put off the meeting to another day
In the prevailing situation the Municipal Commissioner had no other alternative but to adjourn the meeting
Under the scheme of the Act when the term of the elected Councillors is a period of five years which in terms of sub section 2 of section 6 of the Act is deemed to commence on the date of the first meeting the Municipal Commissioner obviously could not adjourn the meeting for another day or adjourn it sine die
If the contention that the meeting having been adjourned without specifying a definite point of time were to prevail it would give rise to a serious anomaly
The effect of adjourning the first meeting to another day would imply the coming into existence of another deemed date under section 62 of the Act for commencement of the term of the Councillors
The Municipal Commissioner has unequivocally asserted that he only suspended the proceedings in order that they could be resumed for transaction of the business for the day and the business for the day had to be transacted on May 6 1988 the date of the first meeting as fixed by him
Admittedly the Municipal Commissioner did not leave the meeting hall nor vacate his seat
He showed exemplary courage in not yielding to the threats of violence wielded by the party in opposition because he knew that in law the first meeting had to be held on that day and could not be adjourned to another day
There is no reason to disbelieve the Municipal Commissioner that when he adjourned the meeting he simultaneously made an announcement that he would later announce the time when the meeting was to be resumed
He is candid enough to say that he had to adjourn the proceedings in view of the prevailing situation when he felt that it was impossible to continue the election process hoping that peace would soon be restored and he would be able to announce the time of the 738 meeting
One of the reasons given for the adjournment was that he adjourned the meeting to enable him to decide and announce the time for the resumption of the further proceedings of the meeting
Rankin CJ in Menaka Bala Dasi s case in repelling the contention that adjournment sine die of an application for making a decree in a mortgage suit final was a discontinuance of it observed Whatever may be the old authorities on that point I have no doubt myself that with us to day adjournment sine die  differs altogether from discontinuance
It is after all an adjournment an adjournment to a date that is not at the moment fixed
 The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sheokumar Shasthri s case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable
In that case it was admitted that the meeting of the Municipal Committee summoned for January 17 1962 at which the motion of no confidence was to have been moved was adjourned sine die for want of quorum and the High Court held relying upon the proviso to section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act 1961 that a meeting convened for consideration of a no confidence motion could not be adjourned sine die but had to be adjourned to some other day  for which a fresh notice was necessary PV Dixit CJ speaking for himself and KL Pandey J observed It is settled law that where there is a power of adjournment and a meeting is adjourned then the adjourned meeting is a continuation of the original meeting and no new notice of an adjourned meeting need be given unless the relevant statutory provisions or rules so require
But in the case of an adjournment sine die a fresh notice is necessary See Scadding vs Lorant   and Wills vs Murray  The proviso to section 32 of the CP and Berar Municipalities Act 1922 laid down that If at any ordinary or special meeting of the committee a quorum is not present the Chairman shall adjourn the meeting to such other day as he may think fit    Under this proviso a meeting could be adjouned to some fixed date and not sine die
 739 The decision in Sheokumar Shashtri is therefore of no avail
Shackleton on the Law  Practice of Meetings 7th edn
apart from the passage at p 44 already quoted gives the different shades of meaning of adjournment as understood in legal parlance in the following words Adjournment is the act is postponing a meeting of any private or public body or any business until another time or indefinitely in which case it is an adjournment sine die
The word applies also to the period during which the meeting or business stands adjourned
An Adjournment may be 1
For an interval expiring on the day of the adjournment
For an interval expiring on some later date
For an indefinite time ie sine die
Until a fixed time and date
To another place
 The learned author then sets out the different causes giving rise to an adjournment which may be by 1 Resolution of the meeting
2 Action of the chairman and 3 Failure to achieve or maintain a quorum
A properly convened meeting cannot be postponed
The proper course to adopt is to hold the meeting as originally intended and then and there adjourn it to a more suitable date
If this course be not adopted members will be entitled to ignore the notice of postponement and if sufficient to form a quorum hold the meeting as originally convened and validly transact the business thereat
Even if the relevant rules do not give the chairman power to adjourn the meeting he may do so in the event of disorder
Such an adjournment must be for no longer than the chairman considers necessary and the chairman must so far as possible communicate his decision to those present
The law relating to adjournment has been put succinctly in Horsley s Meetings Procedure Law and Practice 2nd edn edt
by W John Taggart at p 84 para 1002 740 The word adjournment  tends to be used loosely in connection with meetings
Indeed as a result the word is possibly in process of acquiring a further derived meaning of close conclude or finish  whereas a meeting or a debate is adjourned when its further proceedings are postponed to some subsequent time or to enable it to reassemble at some other place to a later hour in the same day to some future date or indefinitely ie sine die without a day being named
The business of the whole meeting or the debate respectively is indeed suspended but with an intention of deferring it until resumption at a later time
 The learned author goes on to say that the word adjourn  has been in use for almost five centuries in connection with meetings with an early meaning of to put off or defer proceedings to another day  and adds This in due course gave rise to the added meaning to break off for later resumption 
 On an overall view of the facts and circumstances we have no hesitation in upholding the finding that the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation fixed by the Municipal Commissioner for May 6 1988 was not adjourned for the day  or adjourned sine die  but had only been put off to a later hour ie the proceedings had only been suspended to re commence when peace and order were restored
In the result the special leave petition must fail and is dismissed
No costs
GN Petition dismissed


Summary:
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 section 35 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 and gram panchayats questioning the legality and propriety of the formation of certain Revenue Mandals and location of certain Mandal Headquarters notified in preliminary notification issued under sub section
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 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 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  HELD It was difficult to sustain the interference by the High Court in some of cases with the location of the Mandal Headquarters and the quashing of the impugned notification on the ground that the Government had acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or 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 failed to avail of it
The location of Headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub s 5 of section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like Gram Panchayats and the general public keeping in view the relevant factors
Even assuming that any breach of the guidelines for the location of the Mandal 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 Mandal Headquarters at a particular place
711B 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 Mandal 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 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 Mandal 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 aspects was usually for reasons of administrative convenience keeping in view the purpose and object of the Act ie 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 improper considerations or influenced by extraneous considerations
In a matter like this conferment of discretion upon the Government in the matter of formation of a Revenue Mandal 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 696 cases where it had interfered with the location of Mandal 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 promote general public convenience or that the Headquarters should be 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 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 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  Orr
vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh 1986 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 362 CJ Fernandez vs State of Mysore  Ors   Padfield vs Minister of Agriculture Fisheries  Food   Laker Airways Ltd vs Department of Trade at 705 Council of Civil Service Unions and Others vs Minister for the Civil Service   Secretary of State for Education and Science vs Tameside MBC   Breen vs Amalgamated Engineering Union at 190 RV Criminal Injuries Compensation Board explain and Ridge vs Baldwin   referred to