RAM MILAN SHUKLAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition had been filed as a public Interest litigation for quashing the impugned order/notification dated 9.11.1998 and 5.9.1997 Annexures-1 and 13 to the writ petition. By the notification dated 5.9.1997. the State of U. P. has passed an order under Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act creating a district called Sant Kabir Nagar which has been carved out of district Basti.

(2.) In this case on 24.11.1998, this Court granted one month's time to learned standing counsel to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit was filed. Hence we presume the allegations in the writ petition to be correct and are disposing of the writ petition finally.

(3.) In our opinion, there is, no doubt, power in the State Government to create a district by virtue of Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, but this power like any other administrative power, cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It is settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court, e.g. Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board. AIR 1967 SC 295 ; Rohtas Industries v. S. D. Agarwal. AIR 1969 SC 707, etc. that administrative powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily but must be exercised on relevant considerations. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Supreme Court held that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.