Qivssion Bs IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P.No.l^-8:-?~/2005 PETITIONER / Ashok Shrivastava, aged about 48 years, S/o. Late Shri K.P.Shrivastava, resident of Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSU RESPONDENTS 6 ^ ^••^ v \x. .^"r.<...^" 1) State of Chhatdsgarh Through Secretary, (Transport,) Raipur 2) The Regional Transport Officer, ^,,...-:^..^...-:"^ ' Bilaspur" (C.G.) ^^^<^'^ ^ . ...•••'. o ^656?'"....-'"" ^"^- (^ ^^ ^J 4^ 3) The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ :4) The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA &^.^.^^.^^^^-.^. ^r- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIO N0. 1487 OF 2005 Ashok Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others O R D E^ Hon?ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava. J For consideration Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Sd/- Judgc ^-4-2005 Post for ^7-4-2005 8d/- Fakhruddin Judge SS=.-3^--^--=s»s ^JNIIIIIIT^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSOARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PBTITIO N0. 1487 OF 2005 Ashok Shrlvastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Justice Fakhruddin and Hon*ble Shri Justice V.K.Shrlvastava, JJ Shri Satish Chandra Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate General with Shri Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDBR Heard. 2. Shri Veniia, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ttie petitioner has preferred the instant petition in the pubUc interest. He furtlier contended that the challengc in this petition is a decision taken by respondent No.l to shift the Regional Transport OfQce from Nehru Complex, Vyapar Vihar to Old State 'l'ransport Depot at Bus Stand, Bilaspur< He also contended that this would adversely affect the traffic system. Learaed counsel also contcndcd that it would bc inconvcnicnt to thc public at large. 3. During the course of arguments, it is also contended by leamed comisel for the petitioner that tiie proposed m'ea is uot suitable because there are 12 hotels, 9 comiplexes, 8 colleges, 11 hospitals, 4 Banks, 11 restaurants, etc. It is i' ^. also contended that the heavy vehicles are required to enter into the R.T.O. campus for checking and fitaess certificate. 4. On 13-4-2005 at the time of mentioning of the case for its early hearing, it was directed that one extra copy of the petition alongwith annexures be supplied to Shri. Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate General, who was directed to seek uistructions, 5. Shri Mishra, leamed Addl. Advocate General contended that so tai' as decision of shifting ot' R.T.O. is concemed, it is a policy decision and is taken in larger public interest. It is further contended that the decision to shift the office of Regional Transport Officer, Dilaspur is taken last year. The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation was functioning at the time of reorganization of the State. After reorgani7^tion t.he State of'ChhattisgarTi dedded not to establish the State Road Transport Corporation and as such its infrastructure, bi-ulding, etc. had to be given to other Dcpartmcnts. It is also contendcd that the dccision was taken in August, 2004 and the matter was being processed. 6. It is submitted that on 28-8-2004 a meetmg was convened by the Commissioner Transport and decision was taken to acconiinodate the office ofR,T.O, to BUaspur Depot< On 3-12-2004, the Regional Transport Officer was directed Lo lake over tlie possessioii of vacaiil premises of Depot for R.T.O. office. It is also submitted that on 22-1-2005 a letter ^-\was sent by R.T.O. to provide the map, khasra number of r^ ~- > ^•^ Depot office. On 28-1-2005, a letter was written by R.T.O. to obtain fhe premises Depot oflice for R.T.O. office on rent. It is further submitted that on 5-2-2005, ttie Commissioner Transport issued instructions regarding taking possession of Depot office. On 21-2-2005, the Chief General Maaager, Chhattisgarh Infra^tructure Developnient Corporation instructed the Divisional Manager^ CJ.D,C» BUaspiir to execute the agreement for land and premises for R.T.O. at the rate tixed by the CoUector. On 4-3-2005, the S.D.O., P.W.D., Bilaspur was asked to survey for detemiination of the rent of Depot office. On 7-3-2005 a letter was sent by the R.T.O. ofl&ce, Dilaspur to Divisional Manager, CJ.D.C. to give the possession of land aad premises. It is further stated that on 15-3-2005, it was mformed to fhe S.D.O. that the survey has been completecl. Tt is fiirther stated that on 27-3- 2005/29-3-2005, after agreement, the Divisional Manager, CJ.D.C. handed over the possession ofland and preniises to the R.T.O. 7. Ultimately when the premises of Kharaiig Division was given to the High Coiirt, the said Division was required to be shifted to R.T.O. bmlding. Since the Kharang Division was shifted to R.T.O. office premises, the R.T.O. offlce has to be shifted to the Depot premises. 8. Learned Addl. Advocate General also contended that at present about 150 heavy vehicles/buses enter into the bus stand every day and with the shifting ofR.T.O. about 10-15 heavy vehicles will be added in this figure. It is also contended that due care and precautions will be taken by the trafiic police to see that there is no unnecessary movement of heayy vehicles in the area concemed. It is also contended that even othenvise after shifting of the R.T.O» to the new place, the R.T.O. has a plan of closing the depot premises falling in front of Rajeev Plaza Market Complex and the opening will be provided from Link Road, Near CMD College Road. It is further contended that sonie encroachxnente are there and the respondents would take suitable steps in due course and would provide easy access to the vehicles to the R.T.O. from the Link Road aad not from the Bus Stand side. 9. T.eamed Addl. Advocate General contended that t.his is a policy decision. He submitted that the decision has not been taken recently but it is taken long back. He referred to a decision of this Court in the case of RaflaAmar Singh -v- State of Chhattisciarh and others reported tn 2004(2) C.G.L.J. 220. Paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 ai'e relevant and quoted below:- "27. Now, coming to the question of judidal review, where the High Court is to be located, it is primarily within the domam and realm of the Govemment to decide, of-course, with the consultation with the High Court and that has been done. No individual or privcxte person has a nghf to asfc the Govemment to establish the High Court at a particular place. Pnmanly it is a policy decision and the Court is not entitled to interfere ^^ with the policy decision. Jn this connection, we are fortified in our view by thejudgment ofthe Hon^ble Apex Court in the matter of Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others (2002)2 SCC 333) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "in the policy dedsion matters the Court has no power to exercise the poiuer of judicial revieiv^ Similarly^ in the inatter of Union of India & Others Vs. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kcmjzadigara & Others (2002) 10 SCC 226), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "there are varioiis factors which have to be taken into consideraUon ivhen a decision like this has to be arrived at. Asswning that the decision so taken is a political one, it cannot possibly givc rise to a challenge on the ground of legal malafldes. A political decision, if taken by a competent authority in accordance with law, aannot per se be regarded as mala fide. In any case, there is nothing on record to show that the present decisionwas motivated bypolitical consideration, M this case the Central Govt took a decision to e^fahlish railways headquarters at Bangalore, before nat^v^wn could be issued, the Central Govemment decided to establish that headquarter at Hubli which was challenged before the High Court. The High Court quashed the decision and the matter went upto the Supreme Court and Hon'ble Apex Court while reversing the High Court's judgment held that in the matter of policy decision taken by the Govem.ment, the High Court is not entitled to exercise the pozuer ofjudicial revieiu and held that it is notjunction ofthe Court to dedde the location ofthe site ofthe headquarters, It is thefiinction ofthe Govemment 28« In Narmada Bachao Aandolan)s case {2000(10)SCC664}, commenting on tlie scope of judicial review in PIL cases, thc Apcx Court held that : eln respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by fhe Govemment the Courts should not become an approval authority. Normally, such decisions are tdken by the Govemment after due care and conBideration. In a democracy welfare af the people at large, and not merely of a sinall section af the society, has to be the concem ofa responsible Govemment. Ifa considered policy decision has been taken, which is not m inflict with any law or is not malafide, itwill not been public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those area, zuhich are the fiznction of the executive, for any project which is approved after due deliberation the Court should refrainfrom being asked to review the decision Just because a petitioner m flling a PIL alleges that such a dedsion should not have been taken because an opposite view against the r"- ®. undertaking of the project^ zuhich vietu may have been considered by the Govemment, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Govemment takes a policy decision it is tfwn not thefunctton ofthe Court to go into the matter afresh and^ in a way^ sit in appeal over such a policy decision.} 29. Moreover, in the present case no legal malafides or any political motive has been alleged, proved or estabUshed thst the respondents have any legal mala fldes in selecting the new site for construction of the High Court building. As has been held in Narmada BachaD Aandolan^s case when two more options or views are possible and after considering them the Govemment takes a policy decision it is then not the function ofthe Court to go into the inaUer afresh aizd, in a way^ sit in appeal over such policy decision. Therefore, on this ground also this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.9 10. Sjiri Verma contended that so far as inspectlon of heavy vehicles to be niade by the R/T.O< and the offlcials are concerned^ instead of bringing theni all through Link Road to thc R,T,0, officc, arrangcincnt niay bc niadc for chcckuig tlieni outside. So far as tliis aspect is concerned, State in its return has come out with the case that adequate steps have been taken. Nevertheless, tliis Court is havmg no doubt that all steps will be taken by the authorities concerned and no directions are required at this stage^ 11, Lcarned coi-insel for the petitioner contended about tlie traffic hazard. So far as the traffic and safety measures ai'e concemed, the State shall ensure smooth traffic, sufficient police will be posted duly equipped with vehicles aad wireless aiid the authorities will see that there is no trafflc hazard. Suffice it to sav that this CoLirt has dealt with the ® 7 matter in great detail in the case of OfHce Reference Reaardinc! Road Accidents reported in 2002(2^ CGLJ 2 and certain guidelines tiave been issued. Para 30 of the case is relevaat and quoted below:- s30.The ultimate duties and responsibility Ues in the public and the State Functionaries, looking to the seriousnesB of the matter the Court is only highlighting the situation, and by this order is trying to draw attentwn towards the law on the point, duties and obligations of the public, State junctionaries and the State. This Court does not want to legislate or otherwise and would Uke to emphasise that in a decision Union of Iizdia Vs. Assodation for Democratic Refonns and Another (2002 AIR SCW 2186) even the apex Court has taken the vieu> that {it is not possible for the Supreme Court to give any directions for amendmg fhe Act or the statutory Rules. It is forthe Parliament to amend the Act and the Rules. It is also established law that no direction can be given which would be contrary to the Acf and the Rules. However, it is equally settled that in case when the Act or Rules are silent on a particular subject and the Authority implementing the same has constinitional or statutory power to implement it, the Court can necessarily issue direction^ or orders to the scdd subject to fill the vacuum or void till the suitable law is enacted.s It isfor the authorities to do. Ttw Courte have their own Umitations. So far as this Court is concemed it has only highlighted the situation cmd it is for the executives and the legislature to do the needjut ^ 12. In view of the facts and circuinstances narrated above, we are of the considered opinion that shiftiiig is a potlcy decision and befbre exercismg tliat, tlie State authorities have considered all the aspects. The scope ofjudicial review is limited. So far as the safeguards are concerned, the retum of thc State shows that thc authorities are conscious aiid llie plaiis liave Leeii prepared. II is weU scltled ttial where a particular office is to be located, it is primarily within the domain and realm of the Govemment to dedde. G/P/H ® No individual or privatc pcr^on has a right to a^k the Govermnent to establish the Government office at a pai'ticular place and ttiis principle fully applies witti the offlce of R.T.O. so far as traffic hazard etc< is concemed< Much depends upon the co-operation of the public as well. This Court has issued directions froin tinie to tinie and observations made hereiiiabove would also ccrtainly be helpful. The authorities will also take care of. 13. Subject to what has been stated above, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge 2/-4-2005