Dismissed

Bhupesh Chandra Pareek and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2021CW/3632/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the closure of Government Printing Press, Bikaner and transfer of employees to an archives museum project. The High Court held the closure was a valid policy decision based on sustained financial losses and expert recommendations, refusing to interfere under administrative necessity.

What did the court decide?

The petition quashing the closure orders and seeking restoration of duty was dismissed.

Bhupesh Chandra Pareek and Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3632/2018

¶4

Bhupesh Chandra Pareek S/o Bulaki Dasji, R/o Bangla Nagar, Ward No. 2, Bikaner.

¶5

Prem Ratan Joshi S/o Jk Joshi, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Nathusar Gate, Bikaner.

¶6

Sarwan Singh Yadav, Majish Badi, Bikaner.

¶7

Jugal Kishor Singh S/o Nathu Singh, R/o B Sediya Gali, Fed Bazar, Bikaner.

¶8

Umesh Bissa, S/o Purshotam Bissa, R/o Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

¶9

Narendra Tak S/o Chranjvi Lal Tak, R/o No. 1 Road, Rani Bazar, Bikaner.

¶10

Mohammad Hussain S/o Ibrahim Khan, R/o Kuchilpura Chawk, Bikaner.

¶11

Bhanwar Singh Daiya S/o Jay Singh Daiya, R/o Kuchilpura Near Shiv Mandir, Bikaner.

¶12

Sita Ram Pareek, S/o Bhanwar Lal Pareek, R/o Pareek Chawk, Bikaner.

¶13

Ramsingh S/o Hernath Singh, R/o Hanuman Hatha, Pojisa Bas, Bikaner.

¶14

Aameen Mohammad S/o Mohammad Khan, R/o Kuchilpura Chawk, Bikaner.

¶15

Mohammad Sadeek S/o Mohammad Ismile, R/o Ridmalsar, Bikaner.

¶16

----Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan.

¶19

The Principal Secretary, Printing And Stationary Department, Secretariat Jaipur.

¶20

The Deputy Secretary, Art, Literature, Cultural And Archaeology Department, Rajasthan Government, Jaipur.

¶21

The Director Printing And Stationary Department, Directorate, Rajasthan Jaipur.

¶22

The Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Bikaner.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

(2 of 8)

¶25

[CW-3632/2018]

¶26

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate & Advocate General assisted by Mr. K.S. Lodha. Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG

¶27

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶28

Order

¶29

26/11/2021

¶30

This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶31

“1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 17.11.2017 (Annexure-9) and 21.02.2018 (Annexure-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside and accordingly the respondents may kindly be directed to not to close the Government Printing Press at Bikaner and to let the employees of the Government Printing Press at Bikaner performed their duties at Bikaner with all consequential benefits.

¶32

2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, if during the pendency of the petition, any coercive action against the petitioners is taken in pursuance of the orders impugned then the same may kindly be declared as illegal.”

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders dated 17.11.2017 and 21.02.2018 whereby a Committee of seven members has decided to close the Government Printing Press, Bikaner, and thereafter, to use the building thereof as an archives museum, while transferring the existing employees of the Government Printing Press.

¶34

(3 of 8)

¶35

[CW-3632/2018]

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the decision to close down the Government Printing Press, Bikaner, on account of adjusting the archives museum, was not only unlawful, arbitrary and contrary to law, but also would seriously jeopardize the functioning of the State machinery.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the very idea of closing the Press in question, only for the purpose of accommodating the archives museum, was on the face of it illegal, as the said Press was continuously running since 1930-31 i.e. about 90 years.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Annexure-6 and Annexure- 9 to fortify his submissions.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Development

¶40

Authority, N.D. & Anr. Vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee

¶41

of SFS Flats & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1343 , relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶42

“60. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds :

¶43

(a) if it is unconstitutional;

¶44

(b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the Regulations;

¶45

(c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation;

¶46

(d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy.”

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji

¶48

(4 of 8)

¶49

[CW-3632/2018]

¶50

reported in AIR (39) 1952 Supreme Court 16 , relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:

¶51

“[9]. An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to hum they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”

¶52

On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel & Advocate General assisted by Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG and Mr. K.S. Lodha submits that the notion of the petitioners itself is wrong, because the very reason for closing down the Press in question is not for accommodating another department or the archives museum, but to save the respondent-State from the huge losses that are occurring consistently for last number of years. The details given by the learned Advocate General in respect of the losses are as follows:

¶53

S.N.	Year	Gross Income (in Lakhs)	Expenditure (in Crore)	Net Loss
1	1	2	3	4=2-3
1	2011-12	49,81,288/-	2,81,90,811/-	-2,32,09,532/-
2	2012-13	40,48,177/-	2,96,13,814/-	-2,55,65,637/-
3	2013-14	34,18,575/-	3,01,74,333/-	-2,67,55,758/-
4	2014-15	46,32,287/-	3,19,92,991/-	-2,73,60,704/-
5	2015-16	33,72,070/-	3,12,02,538/-	-2,78,30,468/-

¶54

(5 of 8)

¶55

[CW-3632/2018]

¶56

Learned Advocate General further submits that earlier State Government had taken a decision to close the Government Press in question, in view of the Expenditure Reform Commission constituted under the Chairmanship of Shri Yatindra Singh, IAS, who submitted his report on 14.06.2005 and recommended to close the three government presses in phased manner, namely Government Press at Bikaner, Udaipur and Alwar, to curtail the high deficit. Learned Advocate General also submits that the report of the Committee was placed before the Cabinet, and the Cabinet took a decision to close all the three Government Presses. 10. Learned Advocate General further submits that a note- sheet was moved in this regard; such complete note-sheet has been submitted by him before this Court, which is taken on record, and the same which reflects a careful decision-making on the part of the respondent-State regarding a justified policy of closing the Press in question.

¶57

Learned Advocate General relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Navneet Verma reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 65 , relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:

¶58

“17. We summarize the power of government in abolishing a post and role of the court for interference:

¶59

a) the power to create or abolish a post rests with the government;

¶60

b) whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity;

¶61

c) creation and abolition of posts is a matter of government policy and every sovereign government has

¶62

(6 of 8)

¶63

[CW-3632/2018]

¶64

this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration;

¶65

d) creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by the government in the interest of administration and general public;

¶66

e) the court would be the least competent in the face of scanty material to decide whether the government acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from malafide, legal or factual;

¶67

f) as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted.

¶68

With the above principles, let us consider whether the abolition of the posts of Accounts Executives are justified and consequential order of termination terminating the respondent-herein from the said post is sustainable.”

¶69

Learned Advocate General further relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Ramanatha Pillai Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (1973) 2 Supreme Court Cases 650 , relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶70

“14. The first question which falls for determination is whether the Government has a right to abolish a post in the service. The power to create or abolish a post is not related to the doctrine of pleasure. It is a matter of governmental policy. Every sovereign Government has this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration. The creation or abolition of post is dictated by policy decision, exigencies of circumstances and administrative necessity. The creation, the continuance and the abolition of post are all decided by the Government in the interest of administration and general public.”

¶71

(7 of 8)

¶72

[CW-3632/2018]

¶73

Learned Advocate General also relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 333 , relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:

¶74

“92. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow it's own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the Court.

¶75

93. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution. In other words, it is not for the Courts to consider relative merits of different economic policies and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is the Parliament and not the Courts. Here the policy was tested and the Motion defeated in the Lok Sabha on 1st March, 2001.

¶76

94. Thus, apart from the fact that the policy of disinvestment cannot be questioned as such, the facts herein show that fair, just and equitable procedure has been followed in carrying out this disinvestment. The allegations of lack of transparency or that the decision was taken in a hurry or there has been an arbitrary exercise of power are without any basis. It is a matter of regret that on behalf of State of Chattisgarh such allegations against the Union of India have been made

¶77

(8 of 8) [CW-3632/2018]

¶78

without any basis. We strongly deprecate such unfounded averments which have been made by an officer of the said State.”

¶79

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the policy decision in question is neither arbitrary nor devoid of application of mind, and does not violate any statute. There are no grounds in the present petition, on which a policy decision could be interfered with. The aforementioned details of losses clearly show that for last number of years, the Press has incurred continuous heavy losses, and the experts committee has recommended the closure of the Press to avoid high deficit. This Court is thus of the opinion that such a considered decision of the respondent-State does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶80

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶81

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶82

173-SKant/-

Bhupesh Chandra Pareek and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupesh Chandra Pareek and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Vs State

Suresh Kala Vs State of Rajasthan

Fateh Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Chairman Processors Ltd. Vs the Union of India

Lrs of Govind Singh and Ors. Vs Bhanwar Lal Sharma and Anr.