COLLECTORATE BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been heard together as the fate of the second writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 46428 of 2010 depends upon the result of the first writ petition i.e. 22757 of 2008. Therefore, firstly we take the first writ petition for consideration.

(2.) So far as first writ petition is concerned, Collectorate Bar Association, Etah through its President has filed this writ petition in the form of public interest litigation. According to the petitioner, on 15th April, 2008 the then Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh made a public announcement that henceforth Tehsil Kasganj will be a separate district in the name of Sri Kanshi Ram. Pursuant to the aforesaid public announcement, on 17th April, 2008 notification has been issued by the State Government creating a new district called as Kanshi Ram Nagar by carving out Tehsils Kasganj and Patiyali and Block Soron from District Etah. Challenging such notification dated 17th April, 2008 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and also sought for a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding any further towards bifurcation of District Etah pursuant to the impugned notification. The ground of challenge is that before issuance of notification by the State Government for creation of new revenue District Kanshi Ram Nagar necessary budget and infrastructure was not provided. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has relied upon the judgements (Ram Milan Shukla and others Vs. State of U.P. and othres, 1999 1 AWC 723 ) and (State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and another, 2008 5 SCC 550).

(3.) On 15th December, 2009 a Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order recording the submissions of the parties, as follows: