STATE OF NAGALAND Vs. HUSKA SUMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the eight appeals were heard together since common question of facts and law were involved. The constitutional role of judicial review is the nub of the matter. The bare bones are outlined below. All the Respondents in this appeal are elected member of the legislative Assembly of Nagaland and moved this High Court mounting its challenge on the respective minutes of the District Planning and Development Boards proceedings. According to the petitioner (Respondents herein) an economic policy was introduced by the State Government of Nagaland in the year 1992 by way of District Planning Fund Development Scheme. As per the scheme, it was stated interalia that an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs were allocated to each Constituency in the State of Nagaland for development in the Constituency. The petitioners in the writ petitions represented some of those constituencies. Pursuance to the aforesaid policy the State Government formulated a guideline for equitable distribution of development of funds in the State with sixty Assembly Constituencies as the base units. Decentralised planning, selection and execution of schemes, mass participation of the people in the Development work decentralised devolution funds and need based development at quick pace without involving middlemen are the objectives of the scheme. As per the scheme the District/Sub- Divisional Planning Board was to be reconstituted in each district consisting of ML. As Advisers, Nominated members, Heads of Departments with Deputy Commissioner as the Chairman in the District and Additional Deputy Commissioner in the Sub-Divisions and the District Planning Board was to act as the Nodal Agency to supervise and co-ordinate the district plans. The plans, those prepared at the District Planning Board were to be submitted to the State Planning Board for clearance keeping in mind the need to dovetail the working schemes with the State level plans. The various schemes prepared and approved by the District Planning Board/Sub-Divisipnal Level Planning Board were to be submitted to the Government at specified time for approval of the State Planning Board and finance concurrence.

(2.) The writ petitioners (Respondents here-in) mounled its attack on the respective minutes of the District Planning Board held on different dates in Ihe month of November, 1996 as arbitrary and discriminatory. According to the Writ petitioners Ihe scheme submitted by the members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the rulling party/Government nominees were approved, whereas the scheme submitted by the Members of the Legislative Assembly, other than the nulling party, were not approved. According to the petitioners there was a hostile discrimination in allocating the State munificence on the footing of the party affiliations. The Respondents submitted its respective affidavits. The Respondents disputed the allegation of discrimination. All the eight writ petitions were taken up together for consideration and upon hearing the respective parties and on perusal of the records the learned Single Judge set aside and quashed the minutes of District Planning Board held on 5.11.96 in Civil Rule No. 188 (K) 1996, Minutes of District Planning Board held on 13.11.96 in Civil Rule No. 195(K) 1996, Minutes of District Planning Board held on 15.11.96 in Civil Rule No. 197(K) 1996, minutes of District Planning Board held on 5.11.96 in Civil Rule No. 192 (K) 1996; and the minutes of the District Planning Board held on 19.11.96 in Civil Rule No. 217 (K) 1996 with regard to 70% of the sanctioned amount was set aside and quashed and remitted to the respective District Planning Board for examination of the schemes afresh in accordance with the guidelines. Hence the appeals.

(3.) Mr. A.R. Borthakur, learned Advocate General of the State of Nagaland, assisted by Sri P. Borthakur, Sri P. Khatoniar, Sri C.T. Jamir and Miss T. Khro, impugned the decision of Ihe learned Single Judge mainly on the grounds set out below :- Mr. Borthakur, learned Advocate General, firstly submitted that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was limited and such powers can only be exercised against unlawful actions and not otherwise. High Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exceeded its jurisdiction in delving into the reasonableness of the merits of the decisions, submitted Mr. Borthakur. The learned counsel further urged that the subject matter involved in the writ proceedings were relating to an area requiring indepth examination of the factual matrix for administrative judgment, leaving wide choices on the authorities when the choices of the executive was within the confines of reasonableness, it was not left to the Court to probe further into the merits, submitted the learned Advocate General.