CWP No. 17649 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17649 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 20, 2011 District Bar Association …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and anothers ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate with Neha Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The District Bar Association, Ferozepur has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notification dated 27.07.2011 (P-1), issued by the State of Punjab, declaring Fazilka consisting of 6 Kanungo circles, 60 Patwar Circles and 148 revenue villages is to form part of a separate district to be known as Fazilka district with headquarters at Fazilka. The details of 20 Patwar Circles and 89 revenue villages etc. have have been given in the Annexure P-1. The principal ground of challenge before us is that the notification has been issued only under Section 5 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for brevity 'the Act') and there is no reference to Section 5 of the Registration Act, 1908. 2. Having heard leaned counsel for the petitioner at some CWP No. 17649 of 2011 (O&M) -2- length and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, we are of the considered opinion that the power to vary limits and alter number of tehsils, districts and sub-division is within the parameters of the State Government. It is absolute discretion of the State Government to carve out any district or to alter the limits of existing districts. In that regard reliance may be placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of J.R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P. (1988) 4 SCC 364 and Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija v. Collector, Thane (1989) 3 SCC 396. In both the judgments, it has been held that the Courts cannot sit in appeal over the Government decision and carving of a new district is the result of exercise of of discretionary power conferred by statute on the Government and the same was not justiciable. Likewise, the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court have been followed and applied by a Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of District Bar Association, Kurukshetra v. State of Haryana 1998(1) PLR 265. 3. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition does not merit admission and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 20, 2011 Atul