This writ appeal challenges the judgment dismissing a petition against the Government order shifting the Headquarters of Manjeswar Taluk to Uppala. The bench held that locating Taluk Headquarters is an administrative policy decision beyond judicial interference under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WA NO. 1536 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 26650/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19.3.2014
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
HARISHCHANDRA M., 'PARAG', CHANAKYA NAGAR, HOSABETTU VILLAGE MANJESHWAR-671 323, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SMT.O.V.BINDU SRI.NISHIL.P.S. SRI.J.VIMAL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1536 OF 2014
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of November 2022
S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
This writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.3.2014 in W.P.(C)No.26650 of 2013 by which, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
WA NO. 1536 OF 2014
:: 3 ::
regard from the Commissioner, Land Revenue. It was following the recommendation of the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Ext.P2 Gazette Notification was issued notifying the Headquarters and the number of villages to be included in the respective Taluks. Except the Chalakudy Taluk, the Headquarters of which was notified as Thrissur, all other Taluks have notified as its Headquarters the Town bearing
the name of the Taluk. It appears that the 3rd respondent, the Local M.L.A. submitted Ext.P3 representation before the District Collector informing that there are objections to the fixation of Manjeshwaram as the Headquarters of the newly formed Manjeshwaram Taluk and another suitable location is to be identified and reported to the Government for taking further steps. The District Collector thereon furnished Ext.P4 report to the Government recommending Uppala Town as the Headquarters and the Government issued Ext.P5 notification changing the Headquarters of Manjeshwaram Taluk from Manjeshwaram to Uppala.
WA NO. 1536 OF 2014
:: 4 ::
“10. One of the aspects noticed by the District Collector as also by the third respondent is that the Headquarters of newly formed Manjeswram Taluk is at the northern tip of the District and it would cause inconvenience to the residents of Manjeswaram Taluk. The District Collector had also reported that it would be more convenient to the public if the Headquarters of the newly formed Manjewaram Taluk is shifted to Uppala. The Government considered the said report and issued Ext.P5 order. Challenging the very same Government order the President of the Development Action Committee, Manjeswaram Panchayat area of which the petitioner is the Vice President had earlier moved this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.22133 of 2013. The Division Bench held that in the absence of any material before it that Uppala town is not an ideal place which is convenient to the public as indicated in the letter of the District Collector, and formation of Taluks and location of Headquarters is a policy decision of the Government, no interference is called for. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Having regard to the facts stated above as also the views expressed by the District Collectors of Kasaragod
WA NO. 1536 OF 2014
:: 5 ::
District who were in Office in the year 2006 and 2012 respectively, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Government to shift the Headquarters from Manjeswaram to Uppala is in any way arbitrary. The Apex Court has in 1988 AIR 1681 held as follows:
It will serve no useful purpose to delineate the facts in all the cases which follow more or less on the same lines. We are of the opinion that the High Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government to locate the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place. The decision to locate such Headquarters at a particular village is dependent upon various factors. The High Court obviously could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters. In some of the cases the High Court declined to interfere same that the Government was the best Judge fo the situation in the matter of location of Mandal Headquarters. However, in a few cases the High Court while quashing the impugned notifications for location of Mandal Headquarters issued under sub-s.(5) of S.3 of the Act on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines, directed the Government to reconsider the question after hearing the parties.
WA NO. 1536 OF 2014
:: 6 ::
force they did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the petitioner.
In the light of the binding decision of the Apex Court and the principles laid down therein, I am of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the impugned order. As held by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.22133 of 2013, the location of Headquarters of the newly formed Taluks is a matter of administrative policy of the Government and this Court cannot at the instance of the petitioner sit in appeal over the wisdom of the decision of the Government. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.”
WA NO. 1536 OF 2014
:: 7 ::
Litigation and no supporting documents are produced for the challenge to Ext.P5 Government Order.
WA NO. 1536 OF 2014
:: 8 ::
“4. No doubt, on the basis of Revenue Commissioner's report earlier, formation of Taluk came to be made by Ext.P3 locating the Head Quarters of the Taluk. But the Collector being in charge of a district, who is the Revenue head as well of a district, would be definitely acquainted with the factual situation. Therefore, in the absence of any material placed before us that Uppala town cannot be the ideal place being convenient to the public as indicated in the letter of the Collector, we fail to understand what other materials the petitioner can have to persuade us to opine that the decision of the Government on the report of the District Collector is arbitrary and illegal.
WA NO. 1536 OF 2014
:: 9 ::
Ext.P4 in the absence of any compelling circumstances to opine that the action of the Government is illegal and arbitrary.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”
the policy decision of the Government. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.22133 of 2013 dated 5.9.2022 and finding no infirmity in the judgment impugned in this writ appeal i.e., W.P.(C)No.26650/2013 dated 19.3.2014, we decline to interfere with the matter.
Appeal fails. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
jes
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226 when the formation of Taluks and location of Headquarters is a policy decision of the Government.
Whether the Government order shifting the Headquarters entails arbitrariness in violation of Article 14.
Whether the absence of a Government building at the new location renders the order illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1988 AIR 1681Explained¶36
Union of India and Others v Dinesh Engineering CorporationReferred¶47
(2001) 8 SCC 491 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
HARISHCHANDRA M.
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD
P.B. ABDUL RAZACK
T.A. MOOSA
S. MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
