Judgment:
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. Sri Sashibhusan Das, a practising Advocate and a resident of Cuttack has filed this writ application as public interest litigation challenging inter alia the decision or the State Government to shift the Headquarters of the Orissa State Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar and the allotment of accommodation for locating the Headquarters of the Commission (Annexures 2 and 3). The main allegations in support of the challenge are that there is no public interest or genuine administrative reason behind the impugned decision of shifting and the said impugned decision has been taken mechanically on the basis of proposals initiated in 1998 by the then Chairman of the Commission and its Secretary for their personal interest and that the purported Government decision is not a decision of the Government in law inasmuch as such decision has not been taken by the Cabinet in accordance with the rules of business.
2. The opposite parties have filed a counter-affidavit pointing out the administrative convenience which has been taken into consideration by the State Government. The records relating to location of the headquarters of the Commissioner have also been produced before us.
3. Before dealing with the questions involved in this writ application, it is necessary to narrate the facts behind location of the Office of the Commission at Cuttack and the impugned decision to shift it to Bhubaneswar as arc evident from the relevant records and the counter-affidavit. By Orissa Subordinate Staff Selection Commission Rules, 1993 made in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State Government set up the Subordinate Staff Selection Commission in the State to conduct direct recruitment through competitive examination in respect of Class III Civil Posts/Service as listed under Schedule I to the said Rule (Rule 3(1)). The Commission is to function as an attached office of and under the administrative control of the General Administration Department (Vide Rule 3(6)). Rule 3(2) provides that the Headquarters of the Commission would be located at Bhubaneswar. In spite of the said specific (sic) regarding location of the Headquarters it was permitted to be located at Cuttack temporarily for several reasons including immediate non-availability of suitable accommodation at Bhubaneswar.
4. If appears from the records that Sri Sarat Chandra Misra, IPS who was stationed at Cuttack was requested to intimate his willingness to accept the post of Chairman of the Commission on voluntary retirement from All India Service, Sri Misra expressed his willingness to accept the appointment on certain terms and the same was accepted. Thereafter Sri Misra assumed charge of the Office of the Chairman of the Commission with effect from 19-l-1994. Since the accommodation at Bhubaneswar by the time Sri Misra assumed charge as Chairman, he was allowed to function at his residence at Cut tack awaiting final decision with regard to location of the headquarters of the Commission. Besides, initially the nucleus staff of the Commission were drawn from the office of the Board of Revenue, Cuttack, accordingly it was also convenient for the staff to have the Office of the Commission temporarily at Cuttack.
5. It further appears from the record that accommodation for the commission could not be arranged in Bhubaneswar for which steps were taken to find out some accommodation in the office building of the Member, Board of Revenue, as a temporary arrangement. Since no accommodation was also available in the office building of the Member, Board of Revenue, a decision was taken to allow the Commission to function at Cuttack temporarily in a rented house till a place is allotted for the Commission at Bhubaneswar and accordingly the Commission started to function temporarily in a rented house at Cuttack.
By letter No. 12/OSSC dated January 6, 1998 Sri D.S. Tripathy the Secretary of the Commission moved the State Government for allotment of one acre of land at a suitable locality in Bhubaneswar and for shifting the office of the Commission to a suitable Government building at Bhubaneswar pointing out the difficulties and inconveniences of continuing the office of the Commission In a rented building at Cuttack. By his D. O. letter dated May 16, 1999 Sri S.C. Misra the then Chairman of the Commission requested the Chief Secretary of Orissa to take an immediate decision on the Commission's request to shift the office of the Commission from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar. In his letter the Chairman also referred to the various inconveniences experienced by the Commission at Cuttack. By notification dated May 25, 1998 the Orissa Subordinate Staff Selection Commission Rules, 1993 was amended. The Rules and the Commission have been renamed as 'Orissa Staff Selection Commission Rules' and as 'Staff Selection Commission'. Rules 3, Sub-rule (2) has been substituted with the following :--
'The headquarters of the Commission shall be located at such a places may be determined by the Government from time to time.'
6-7. The request of the Chairman for shifting the office to Bhubaneswar was considered and it was decided to keep the proposal in abeyance. Some other representations were made in the month of August, 1998 for shifting the Office of the Commission from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar indicating the reasons therefor and the proposal was again considered at the Government level. The office note indicates several difficulties faced by the Commission at Cuttack and the proposal was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister for approval. As it appears from the records the Hon'ble Chief Minister approved the proposal for shifting the office from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar on 24-9-1998. After such approval the General Administration Department by its letter dated October 14, 1998 (Annexure 2) communicated the said decision of the Government to the Commission. The General Administration Department by office order dated November 25, 1998 provisionally allotted 5th floor of 4A Type Quarters and 4B Type Quarters for accommodating the office of the Commission.
8. On these backgrounds the petitioner raises a question about competency of the Hon'ble Chief Minister to take the decision. According to him, the decision should have been taken by the Cabinet under the Rules of Business and such decision having not been taken by the Cabinet, the direction for shifting the office is illegal.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the intervenors who have supported the decision to shift, challenge the locus standi of the petitioner in filing the writ application, Their further contention is that under the Rules of Business the proposal for shifting the office from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar need not be placed before the Cabinet and the Hon'ble Chief Minister is competent to take the decision and accordingly there is no illegality in such decision of shifting the Office of the Commission from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar.
10. From the pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced by the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties, the following points require to be examined :
(1) Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the decision to shift the Office of the Commission from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar?
(2) Under the Rules of Business whether such a decision is to be taken by the Cabinet or the Hon'ble Chief Minister is competent to take such decision?
(3) Whether the decision to shift the Office of the Commission from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar has been taken bona fide in administrative interest?
11. Before entering into the question as to whether the petition at the instance of the petitioner is maintainable or not, it is worthwhile to note that in past few years Apex Court has admitted the exceptions from the strict rules relating to affidavit, locus standi and the like in the case of class of litigations which have acquired classification as 'public interest litigation', that is, where the public in general are interested in the vindication of some right or the enforcement of some public duty. High Courts have started following this practice in their jurisdiction under Article 226 and the Apex Court has approved this practice observing that where public interest is undetermined by arbitrary and perverse executive action, it would be the duty of the High Court to issue a writ. Several decisions of the Apex Court would indicate that the public interest litigations have been entertained not only at the instance of associations or organisations, but also at the instance of individuals interested in a common cause or an Advocate or journalists. From series of decisions it is now established that writ petition may be moved not only by the aggrieved individual but also by public spirited individual or a journalist or a social action group, for enforcement of the constitutional or legal right of some other person, provided such other person is unable to approach the Court for redress. Public interest litigation may also be moved in relation to the subject-matter which is such that though no particular individual has been specifically injured, the public in general are interested in the vindication of some right or the enforcement of some duty. The category of persons from whom the Court would entertain a public interest litigation is ever-expanding. Principles are, the cause must be for the enforcement of some constitutional or legal right of the unrepresented and under-represented.
12. While entertaining the public interest litigation, the Court must be careful to see that its process is not abused by a person/association/organisation who/which has no interest in the subject matter except personal interest or interest of the organisation or association. But at the same time, the Court can prevent executive actions which are mischievous without encroaching upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature.
13. In the present case, the writ application has been filed by a practising lawyer of this Court wherein he alleges that not only the decision to shift Office of the Commission has been taken at the level of the Chairman of the Commission, and not by the State Govt., but also alleges that shifting of Office of the Commission shall result inconvenience to the public at large. Apart from the said allegations it is also stated that different Offices of the State Government are being shifted to Bhubaneswar, as a result of which importance of the old city of Cuttack is lost which was once upon a time the Capital of the State.
Similar question arose in a decision, reported in (1992) 73 Cut LT 567 (Bhabani Shankar Tripathy v. Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Home Department) where there was a threat of shifting of place of sitting of High Court from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar. The writ application was filed by a practising advocate of this Court and the question of locus standi was also considered in the said case. This Court observed that the lawyer in his own interest and in the interest of other lawyers and the litigant public has a right to see that the law is observed and authorities in whom power is not vested to take a decision as regards shifting of the seat of the High Court are restrained from committing violation of the law. We are of the view that the writ application is maintainable at the Instance of the petitioner.
14. Next is the question whether the decision has been taken at the level of the Chairman of the Commission or the State Government, We have carefully examined the records and we find that the Hon'ble Chief Minister has taken the decision and has approved shifting of the Office of the Commission from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar. The petitioner submits that such a decision has to be taken by the Cabinet and not by the Hon'ble Chief Minister alone. To decide the point, it is necessary to refer to the Orissa Government Rules of Business. Rule 2(b) of the said Rules of Business define 'Council' meaning the Council of Ministers constituted under Article 163 of the Constitution of India. Rule 7 provides that the Council shall be collectively responsible for all executive orders issued in the name of the Governor in accordance with the rules whether such orders are authorised by an individual Minister or Minister of State on a matter appertaining his portfolio or as a result of discussion at a meeting of the Council or of the Cabinet or whosoever otherwise.
Rule 8 provides types of cases which shall be brought before the Cabinet. Rule 8 of the Rules of Business is quoted below :
'8(1) All cases referred to in the Second Schedule shall be brought before the Cabinet by the direction of--
(i) the Chief Minister, or
(ii) the Minister Incharge or the Minister of State Incharge of the case with the consent of the Chief Minister.
(2) Cases shall also be brought before the Cabinet by the Chief Minister by the direction of the Governor under Clause (c) of Article 167.
Provided that no case in regard to which the Finance Department is required is to be consulted under Rule 10 shall, save in exceptional circumstances under the direction of Chief Minister, be discussed by the Cabinet unless the Finance Minister has had opportunity for its considerations.
Provided further that the Chief Minister may anticipate approval of the Cabinet in cases of emergency, if the meeting of the Cabinet is likely to be delayed. Such cases shall have to be placed before the next meeting of the Cabinet as and when held
It is evident from the said Rules that all cases referred to in the Second Schedule of the Rules of Business have to be brought before the Cabinet. The decision with regard to shifting of office does not come under the Schedule II of the Rules of Business. In Schedule I, under the heading 'Administration of New Capital', which is a State subject, planning the construction programme and allotment of buildings for official and residential purpose has been inserted. Therefore, allotment of buildings for official purpose comes under Schedule I and as such need not be placed before the Cabinet and the Hon'ble Chief Minister can take the decision.
15. Learned Additional Government Advocate has referred to a decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 1681 (J. R. Raghupathy v. State of A. P,). The question involved in the said case is with regard to location of Mandal headquarters, where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed the notification issued under Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act (7 of 1974) on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The Supreme Court, set aside the said judgment on the ground that guidelines for location of the Mandal headquarters have no statutory force and the said guidelines are mere departmental instructions meant for the Collectors. The ultimate decision as to formation of a Revenue Mandal or location of its headquarters was with the Government.
16. It has already been pointed out that the Office of the Commission was located at Cuttack provisionally as a temporary measure. The concerned rule gives liberty to the State Government to decide where the headquarters of the Commission will be situated. It appears that the State Government is paying monthly rent of Rs. 17,871 /- for the rented accommodation at Cuttack whereas the State Government is required to pay only a nominal charge of Rs. 2584/- for the accommodation allotted at Bhubaneswar. The Office of the Commission at Cuttack is located in third floor of the building without any lift facility. The allotted accommodation at Bhubaneswar has got lift facility. It has also been pointed out in the counter and in the application for vacating the interim order that Bhubaneswar being the capital it is better connected with other parts of the State. In the proposals of the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission several difficulties experienced by the Commission at Cuttack have been mentioned. Considering the various aspects, the Hon'ble Chief Minister ultimately approved the proposal to shift the Office of the Commission from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar. From the materials on record, it cannot be said that administrative reasons are non-existent as alleged by the petitioner. The State Government is the ultimate authority to consider the administrative conveniences. Accordingly, we do not find any element of mala fide in the impugned decision to shift the headquarters of the Commission to Bhubaneswar.
17. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the contentions raised by the petitioner and dismiss the writ application.
Pradipta Ray, J.
18. I agree.