J.R. Raghupathy and Ors. vs. State of A.P. and Ors.

Facts

As many as 124 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed in the High Court by individuals and gram panchayats questioning the legality and propriety of the formation of certain Revenue Mandals, and particularly the location of Mandal Headquarters, abolition of certain Mandals or shifting of Mandal Headquarters, as notified in the preliminary notification issued under Sub-section (5) of Section 3, deletion and addition of villages to certain mandals. The learned Judges upheld the validity of the formation of Mandals as also the aforesaid GOMs and in some cases, they declined to interfere with the location of Mandal Headquarters holding that the Government was the best judge of the situation or on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines, and directed the Government to reconsider the question of the location of Mandal Headquarters.

Key Takeaways for Students

Legal Issue

Whether the location of Mandal Headquarters was a purely governmental function and therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Holding

The Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place 'X' rather than a place 'Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favor of the writ petitioners.

Final Decision Petition Dismissed

Ratio

The court can intervene in the decision of the Government of it misused its power.