Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kannadigara and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7014 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12284 of 2000)
With
Civil Appeal No. 7015 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12643 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12284 of 2000)
With
Civil Appeal No. 7015 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12643 of 2000)
Petitioner: Union of India & Ors.
Respondent: Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kannadigara and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7014 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12284 of 2000)
With
Civil Appeal No. 7015 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12643 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12284 of 2000)
With
Civil Appeal No. 7015 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12643 of 2000)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 10, 2001
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 226 – Jurisdiction under – Zonal office of south-western railways – Shifting from Bangalore to Hubli – High Court holding it bad for legal mala fides and directing it to be located at Bangalore – Decision for locating zonal office taken by union cabinet is political. Held that High Court was not to decide as to where the headquarters should be. No directions could be issued in the manner in which it has been issued. Appeal allowed.
Held:
Merely because an administrative decision has been taken to locate the headquarters at Bangalore which decision is subsequently altered by the same authority, namely, the Union Cabinet, cannot lead one to the conclusion that there has been legal mala fides. Why the headquarters should be at Hubli and not at Bangalore, is not for the court to decide. There are various factors which have to be taken into consideration when a decision like this has to be arrived at. Assuming that the decision so taken is a political one, it cannot possibly give rise to a challenge on the ground of legal mala fides. A political decision, if taken by a competent authority in accordance with law, cannot per se be regarded as mala fide. In any case, there is nothing on the record to show that the present decision was motivated by political consideration. The High Court has issued a direction to the appellants herein to locate the zonal office of the railways at Bangalore. Apart from the fact that in matters of policy the court will not interfere, such a direction could under no circumstances have been issued. (Paras 5, 6)
Cases Reffered:
1. Delhi Science Forum and Others v. Union of India and Another (JT 1996 (2) SC 295) (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The decision of the central government to locate the headquarters of South Western Railways at Hubli instead of Bangalore was successfully impugned by the respondents before the High Court of Karnataka. It was the case of the respondents that once the railways had decided to establish the headquarters at Bangalore and spent public funds in putting up part of the establishment a subsequent decision of shifting the headquarters to Hubli was bad in law.
3. The High Court came to the conclusion that this decision was vitiated on account of legal mala fides as the appellants herein had decided to shift the zonal office from Bangalore to Hubli without any changed or compelling circumstances and without taking into account all relevant and material facts.
4. It is contended by the learned Solicitor General that where the headquarters of a zonal railway should be, is only a question of policy and it is no business of the court to interfere with a policy decision. He drew out attention to the fact that it is the Ministry of Railways which had initially decided with the approval of the Union Cabinet that the headquarters be set up at Bangalore, but no notification establishing the headquarters at Bangalore was ever issued under the Railways Act. Thereafter it is the Union Cabinet which took a decision that the headquarters should be shifted from Bangalore to Hubli. This fact is not disputed.
5. We do not find any basis for the High Court coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Union Cabinet was vitiated on account of legal mala fides. Merely because an administrative decision has been taken to locate the headquarters at Bangalore, which decision is subsequently altered by the same authority, namely, the Union Cabinet, cannot lead one to the conclusion that there has been legal mala fides. Why the headquarters should be at Hubli and not at Bangalore, is not for the court to decide. There are various factors which have to be taken into consideration when a decision like this has to be arrived at. Assuming that the decision so taken is a political one, it cannot possibly give rise to a challenge on the ground of legal mala fides. A political decision, if taken by a competent authority in accordance with law, cannot per se be regarded as mala fide. In any case, there is nothing on the record to show that the present decision was motivated by political consideration. The observation of the High Court that there has been a change in the decision because there was a change of the governments and a different political party had come into power, is not supported by any basis. That the Court will not interfere in questions of policy decision is clearly brought out by the following passage from a decision of this Court in Delhi Science Forum and Others v. Union of India and Another (JT 1996 (2) SC 295), when at page 413, it was observed as follows:
“What has been said in respect of legislations is applicable even in respect of policies which have been adopted by Parliament. They cannot be tested in court of law. The courts cannot express their opinion as to whether at a particular juncture or under a particular situation prevailing in the country, any such national policy should have been adopted or not. There may be views and views; opinions and opinions which may be shared and believed by citizens of the country including the representatives of the people in Parliament. But that has to be sorted out in Parliament which has to approve such policies. Privatisation is a fundamental concept underlying the questions about the power to make economic decisions. What should be the role of the state in the economic development of the nation? How the resources of the country shall be used? How the goals fixed shall be attained? What are to be the safeguards to prevent the abuse of the economic power? What is the mechanism of accountability to ensure that the decision regarding privatisation is in public interest? All these questions have to be answered by a vigilant Parliament. Courts have their limitations – because these issues rest with the policy-makers for the nation. No direction can be given or is expected from the courts unless while implementing such policies, there is violation or infringement of any of the constitutional or statutory provision. The new telecom policy was placed before Parliament and it shall be deemed that Parliament has approved the same. This Court cannot review and examine as to whether the said policy should have been adopted. Of course, whether there is any legal
or constitutional bar in adopting such
policy can certainly be examined by the Court.”
6. We further find that the High Court has issued a direction to the appellants herein to locate the zonal office of the railways at Bangalore. Apart from the fact that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere, such a direction could under no circumstances have been issued. If a case had been made out, and in this case no such case had been made out, that a decision to locate it at Hubli was not in accordance with law, then the only direction which could have been issued by the court was to consider as to where the headquarters should be located. It is not the function of the Court to decide the location or the situs of the headquarters, it is the function of the government. On this ground also, the decision of the High Court is incorrect.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, the result of which would be that the writ petition filed by the respondents would stand dismissed.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The decision of the central government to locate the headquarters of South Western Railways at Hubli instead of Bangalore was successfully impugned by the respondents before the High Court of Karnataka. It was the case of the respondents that once the railways had decided to establish the headquarters at Bangalore and spent public funds in putting up part of the establishment a subsequent decision of shifting the headquarters to Hubli was bad in law.
3. The High Court came to the conclusion that this decision was vitiated on account of legal mala fides as the appellants herein had decided to shift the zonal office from Bangalore to Hubli without any changed or compelling circumstances and without taking into account all relevant and material facts.
4. It is contended by the learned Solicitor General that where the headquarters of a zonal railway should be, is only a question of policy and it is no business of the court to interfere with a policy decision. He drew out attention to the fact that it is the Ministry of Railways which had initially decided with the approval of the Union Cabinet that the headquarters be set up at Bangalore, but no notification establishing the headquarters at Bangalore was ever issued under the Railways Act. Thereafter it is the Union Cabinet which took a decision that the headquarters should be shifted from Bangalore to Hubli. This fact is not disputed.
5. We do not find any basis for the High Court coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Union Cabinet was vitiated on account of legal mala fides. Merely because an administrative decision has been taken to locate the headquarters at Bangalore, which decision is subsequently altered by the same authority, namely, the Union Cabinet, cannot lead one to the conclusion that there has been legal mala fides. Why the headquarters should be at Hubli and not at Bangalore, is not for the court to decide. There are various factors which have to be taken into consideration when a decision like this has to be arrived at. Assuming that the decision so taken is a political one, it cannot possibly give rise to a challenge on the ground of legal mala fides. A political decision, if taken by a competent authority in accordance with law, cannot per se be regarded as mala fide. In any case, there is nothing on the record to show that the present decision was motivated by political consideration. The observation of the High Court that there has been a change in the decision because there was a change of the governments and a different political party had come into power, is not supported by any basis. That the Court will not interfere in questions of policy decision is clearly brought out by the following passage from a decision of this Court in Delhi Science Forum and Others v. Union of India and Another (JT 1996 (2) SC 295), when at page 413, it was observed as follows:
“What has been said in respect of legislations is applicable even in respect of policies which have been adopted by Parliament. They cannot be tested in court of law. The courts cannot express their opinion as to whether at a particular juncture or under a particular situation prevailing in the country, any such national policy should have been adopted or not. There may be views and views; opinions and opinions which may be shared and believed by citizens of the country including the representatives of the people in Parliament. But that has to be sorted out in Parliament which has to approve such policies. Privatisation is a fundamental concept underlying the questions about the power to make economic decisions. What should be the role of the state in the economic development of the nation? How the resources of the country shall be used? How the goals fixed shall be attained? What are to be the safeguards to prevent the abuse of the economic power? What is the mechanism of accountability to ensure that the decision regarding privatisation is in public interest? All these questions have to be answered by a vigilant Parliament. Courts have their limitations – because these issues rest with the policy-makers for the nation. No direction can be given or is expected from the courts unless while implementing such policies, there is violation or infringement of any of the constitutional or statutory provision. The new telecom policy was placed before Parliament and it shall be deemed that Parliament has approved the same. This Court cannot review and examine as to whether the said policy should have been adopted. Of course, whether there is any legal
or constitutional bar in adopting such
policy can certainly be examined by the Court.”
6. We further find that the High Court has issued a direction to the appellants herein to locate the zonal office of the railways at Bangalore. Apart from the fact that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere, such a direction could under no circumstances have been issued. If a case had been made out, and in this case no such case had been made out, that a decision to locate it at Hubli was not in accordance with law, then the only direction which could have been issued by the court was to consider as to where the headquarters should be located. It is not the function of the Court to decide the location or the situs of the headquarters, it is the function of the government. On this ground also, the decision of the High Court is incorrect.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, the result of which would be that the writ petition filed by the respondents would stand dismissed.
