ORDER
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the creation of State of Chhattisgarh by the M.P. State Reorganisation Act, 2000, (for brevity 'Reorganisation Act, 2000'). His submission is that creation of new State be stayed and the Reorganisation Act, 2000, quashed.
2. The State of Madhya Pradesh was created by the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, from November 1, 1956. It is the largest State in India and it comprised the old districts of Central Provinces excluding districts of Berar, old State of Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Sironj Sub-Division of Vidisha District, initially forming part of State of Rajasthan. It was created by the Union of India mainly on the report of State Reorganisation Commission, 1955, Chapter VII of which deals specifically with subject 'Smaller States v. Larger States'. The Home Minister Late Shri Vallabh Bhai Patel got abolished the small States and favoured compact bigger States on the basis of norms fixed by the State Reorganisation Commission, 1955, headed by Supreme Court Judge, Sarvashri Fazal Ali, H.N. Kunzuru and K.M. Pannikar, as Members of the Commission.
3. The Prime Minister, during election to Lok Sabha in 1996, promised to create Chhattisgarh as a separate State in his election campaign at Raipur. As his party came in power, he activated the Union Government to create this State and the Congress Party also supported this move. As a result of this political decision, Reorganisation Act, 2000, came into existence and new State is coming into existence from 1-11-2000. Hence, the State of M.P. is taking fastest steps to allot officials and ministerial staffs to the new State and construction works at Raipur and Bilaspur are in full swing. It is said that the High Court shall function from 1-11-2000 at Bilaspur. Crores of rupees are being spent in this venture, when there is no justification for creating this State which will comprise of six old Districts of Madhya Pradesh namely, Raipur, Baster, Bilaspur, Durg, Raigarh and Sarguja. Some more districts have been created, but that would not justify the creation of separate State in present times of price hike with great burden on public exchequer of the State and Union Government causing colossal waste of public money.
4. The Britishers could run the administration of undivided India from a distance of thousands of miles and it is very amazing that our politicians cannot run the administration of places from a few hundred miles from the capital, despite facilities of internet, fax, telephone, television, super fast trains, air services available to them. The three new States are created with sole object of political gains and not for efficient administration. Now-a-days, every politician is ambitious to become a Chief Minister and if India is to be divided at the rate of six districts having population of One Crore Seventy Six Thousand as unit, the country can be divided into hundreds of States, which is not in National interest.
5. For the formation of this State, consensus of the people particularly elite was not obtained. It is a creation of political will otherwise it is unwanted and is not going to benefit the people, opinion also held by important national media and prominent persons.
6. There is unrest in the area created by Naxalites, due to which people are in fear, there is no safety and critical situation is existing there. The administration is not giving benefit to the people for want of fund except wasting huge sums for creation of Secretariat, High Court, Vidhan Sabha, MLA Rest House, Office of Heads of Departments, Ministers' Bungalows, which Chhattisgarh revenue cannot yield at all. With this background, creation of new State is not justified. Creation of new State is purely political, therefore, Court should intervene to stop the creation of State.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It may be true that voices have been raised against creation of new State by certain individuals and organisation questioning the creation of State, but the fact remains that the demand for creation of Chhattisgarh State has been continuing for the past many decades. It is based on regional aspirations and other factors. Agitation after agitation was held by various organizations. Ultimately, demand was realised by political parties for creation of Chhattisgarh. It found place in the election manifestoes of political parties. State Legislative Assembly passed resolution for creation of new State followed by the Parliament, which is competent to create new State under Article 3 of the Constitution of India. The Reorganisation Act, 2000, has been passed by the Indian Parliament. This is a legislative enactment competently passed by the Parliament. It is not possible to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that creation of new State lacks will of people of the State, since in a democracy, their will is reflected through the elected representatives in the State Legislature and the Parliament. When elected representatives of the people passed the Reorganisation Act, 2000, for creation of State of Chhattisgarh, it has to be taken that people of the State want to creation of the new State. It is difficult to impute motive or had faith/malafides to the Legislature and the Parliament in passing the legislation. It has to be presumed that the legislation has been passed in the interest of people of the State and creation of new State is going to fulfil the long standing aspirations of the people. Whether it would be efficiently administered is foreign to the jurisdiction of this Court. The Reorganisation Act, 2000 has not been passed in haste. It is result of long standing movement followed by consideration at various levels in the administration and the Legislatures. The legislation has been passed after many years. The petitioner is approaching the Court when the new State of Chhattisgarh is coming into existence from November 1,2000. Challenge is vague, fanciful and based on misconceptions.
8. After considering the matter, we find no merit in any of the contentions raised and the petition is dismissed in limine.