IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6045 of 2010 KASHI CHOUDHARY S/O LATE KHOBHARI CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- KHARADARA, P.S.- ANDAR, DISTT.- SIWAN. ----------------Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT REGISTRATION OFFICER, SIWAN. ---------------------Respondents. ----------- 2 08-04-2010 Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the petitioner professing to act pro bono publico, has sought the following reliefs:- “I.For issuance of writ/writs in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondents authorities to not include the Ander circle (District-Siwan) under the sub-registration office, Raghunathpur, for Registration work which is going to be open by the notification issued by the Secretary Registration, Department, Bihar, Patna for which news has been published in daily news paper Hindustan on 8.1.2010 because the Ander circle is situated Aearer to Darauli circle in which there is already registration office under which work of registration of people of Ander circle is included since long; II.For issuance of writ/writs in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondent authorities to continue the registration work of the people of Ander circle in registration office Darauli which also cornes under the Darauli assembly constituency and it is nearer to the registration office Darauli than Raghunathpur because the authorities of State are bound to provide convenience to the public, but due to the 2 present act of the state authorities public of Ander circle will be compelled to face difficulties for which locale public have already filed their representation before the respondent authorities. III.For issuance of writ/writs in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification published through the news paper Hindustan on 8.1.2010 where by and where under notification has been issued to open the sub-registration office in Raghunathpur, Siwan under which territorial area will be Raghunathpur, Siswan and Ander circle, which was all ready open earlier and closed with effect from the date of 1.4.2007 because criteria was not full filed, in view of the fact that due to insufficient Financial transaction Raghunathpur sub-registration office was closed and on the instance of political person it is going to be open with a purpose to provide some political gain in coming assembly election which, is against the public interest.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned prayer would submit that the decision placing Ander Block within the jurisdiction while carving out and opening of a sub-registration office at Raghunathpur was/is basically against the interest of general people of Ander Block. He further submits that there would be more convenience for the people of Ander Block in getting their documents registered at Darauli Sub-registration office in whole jurisdiction Ander block was earlier included. He has also submitted that the distance of Ander Block to Darauli sub- registration office is around four kilometer, whereas, 3 distance between Ander Block to Raghunathpur Sub- registration office is more than ten kilometers. In the opinion of this Court, inclusion/ exclusion of a particular village/Anchal in a Gram Panchayat and/or Registration and Sub-Registration offices have to be strictly governed by the statutory provisions. Recently, we have considered a similar question as with regard to inclusion of an area in Gram Panchayat in a Public Interest Litigation, C.W.J.C. No.5702 of 2010 wherein we have held that the inclusion of a particular Panchayat in a particular Block is within the domain of the State Government and that can only be assailed if there is any kind of statutory violation. The said writ petition was, in fact, dismissed in absence of any statutory violation. The establishment and functioning of the Registration offices and Sub-Registration offices is governed by Section 5 of the Registration Act, 1908 and we find that the impugned notification dated 5.1.2010 including the geographical area of Ander Anchal, Siswan Anchal and Raghunathpur Anchal have been included in 4 the Raghunathpur Sub-Registration Offices by amending the jurisdiction of Sub-Registration Office, Darauli and Maharajganj. Such decisions have been taken under the administrative exigencies which are also guided by the interest of revenue. In this background our specific query from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there was any statutory violation of section 5 of the Registration Act, was sought to be avoided by him by taking a plea that earlier the people of Ander Anchal had an easier access to Darauli Sub-Registration Office. In our considered opinion, there being no statutory provision laying down distance for establishment of Registration/Sub-Registration offices, this Court cannot accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision to establish and make the Raghunathpur Sub-Registration office was vitiated only because such new Sub.-Registration office reducing the work load of the existing Sub-Registration Office at Darauli and Maharanjganj was capable of causing some inconvenience for the people to travel from Ander Block 5 to Raghunathpur Sub-Registration office. The location of administrative and revenue offices in a Block, Subdivision or District has to be based on varied considerations and whenever a new office is established, it automatically also involves change and/or alternation in the jurisdiction of the existing offices. Such change/alternation may make the distance for some nearer to the new office and also a bit farther to the earlier one to others. However such decision based on administrative exigencies of the State Government cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution only on account of distance especially when it is backed by the statutory exercise of power by the State Government. We therefore find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)