ISHWAR DASS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMP No. 371/99 Allowed. CMP No. 189/99.

(2.) The grievance of the Petitioner is that being a Member of the Legislative Assembly representing the Constituency in question from 1967 onwards with small breaks in between, till date, he is well aware of the difficulties and problems of his people, that the notification, if given effect to, will have the effect of distancing the people of the Constituency from the Divisional Office of HP, PWD, Division Nirmand to such a considerable extent causing grave difficulties, inconvenience and in justice the same should be set aside. It is also stated that there was no necessity or public interest involved in passing such an order and that the same has been passed without taking into consideration the topography of the area and the difficulties that may have to be encountered by the citizens of this locality involved in placing the said Division which was hither to said to have been under the control of 11th Circle of HP, PWD at Rampur Under the Administrative/Technical control of 6th Circle of HP, PWD, at Kullu.

(3.) Mr. Inder Singh learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner with his usual persuasiveness, while reiterating the stand taken in the petition filed, strenuously contended that public interest has not been taken into consideration, at all, in passing the order under challenge and that the order appears to have been passed without proper or due application of mind and without any justifying the reasons being also assigned therefor, and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court. Argued the learned Counsel further that every action of the Government is to be subject to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and must also stand the test of reasonableness and the order under challenge cannot be said to be an one satisfying such requirements. The learned Counsel strongly placed reliance upon some of the decisions to which reference will be made here-in-after. The decision reported in Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University and Ors., 1998 8 SCC 194 was rendered in the context of termination of the services of the Petitioner therein on the ground that his appointment was made by an incompetent authority, and, therefore, was invalid and the controversy also centered around, the exercise of statutory powers under Section 35(3) of the Bihar State Universities Act. The decision in State of U.P. v. U.P. University Colleges Pensioners Association, 1994 AIR(SC) 2311 is one rendered in the context of liberalised pension policy and the impact of the same on pensioners. The decision in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Ors., 1998 4 SCC 117 was in the context of the change and revision in the policy pertaining to reimbursement of medical expenses of Government employees and pensioners. The observations made by their Lordships of the Apex Court in the context of such claims asserted by the respective Petitioners in those cases which involved rights and privileges secured cannot be taken out of their context in appreciating or adjudging the grievance of the Petitioner in the present case.