I. Mahanty, J.
1. The aforesaid Public Interest Litigations have been filed by the Petitioners originally seeking to challenge the proposed Scheme for re-organisation of the Revenue Department vis-a-vis re-organisation of Settlement and Consolidation with Tahasil Administration vide Annexures 2 and 3 to WPC No. 7763 of 2003 and thereafter, further seeking to challenge Resolution No. DRC- 33/2003-57938/R dated 6.12.2003 of the Government under Annexure-1 to W.P.(C) No. 13959 of 2003.
2. The Petitioners in both the writ applications, inter alia, seek to challenge the proposal/resolution of the Government of Orissa dated 6.12.2003 deciding to:
(1) Integrate the Settlement and Consolidation work into mainstream of Tahasil Administration.
(2) Rationalize Revenue Administration at the Directorate, District, Sub-Divisional and Tahasil level.
(3) Reorganize the training institutes.
3. Mr. M.S. Panda, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 7763 of 2003, inter alia, submitted that the Petitioners apprehend that the Scheme/Resolution for reorganization of Consolidation and Settlement with Tahasil Administration would frustrate the aims and objects of the the Scheme of Consolidation and Settlement thereby abandoning the functioning of both the Organisations because Consolidation and Settlement staff under the Tahasil Administration after amalgamation would discharge their original function of the Tahasil works which are long pending, but under the Tahasil Administration. Mr. Panda placed reliance on a letter of the Member Board of Revenue dated 4.9.2006, wherein various issues have been raised before the Government relating to the impugned Resolution and stated that the Government have failed to address/comply with various issues raised in the said letter.
4. Mr. Panda also placed reliance on the averments contained in paragraph-19 of the writ application and submitted that the erstwhile Director of Land Records and Survey, Shri P.K. Tripathy, had submitted a draft on reorganization Scheme to suit the corrupt higher bureaucrats, Ministers and politicians for which he was rewarded with the Scheme of implementing the computerization of land records and he was given the responsibilities of spending the aforesaid huge funds meant for computeriasation. According to Shri Panda the money spent on computerization led to corrupt practices and have been distributed amongst the said corrupt officials and politicians and that the concerned officer was also involved in a Land Scam at Bhubaneswar for which hundreds of Acres of Government land have been wrongly recorded in favour of private parties. He further submitted that to give a sealed cover to the above Land Scam, the Settlement and Consolidation operation have been sought to be suspended/abandoned in the garb of reorganization of Revenue Administration and under the patronage of such bureaucrats. In this respect Mr. Panda placed reliance upon a letter of the Charge Officer, Puri dated 3.2.2003 and the letter dated 3.5.2003 of the General Administration Department under Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ application. The averments contained in paragraph-19 of the writ application are quoted below:
That the Petitioners have learnt that the then Director of Land Records and Survey Sri P.K. Tripathy (I.A.S.) vide this letter in Annexure-2 has submitted a Draft Re-organization Scheme to suit the corrupt higher bureaucrats, ministers and politicians for which he was rewarded to implement the scheme of Computerization of land records and as such he was given the responsibilities of spending the aforesaid huge funds meant for computerization.
The Petitioners have further learnt that the money earned out of corrupt practices adopted in computerization have been distributed among the said corrupt officials and politicians. It is also further Learned that due to the submission of aforesaid Draft Scheme and rampant corruption in computerization, the concerned bureaucrat after his retirement, has been inducted as a Member of the Planning Board of the State. Hence, the Petitioners apprehend that there is a deep rooted conspiracy and unholy nexus amongst the bureaucrats and the politicians in the said Computer deal/scam and in sponsoring the said Re-organization Scheme.
The Petitioners have also learnt that due to aforesaid nexus, the concerned officer was also involved in a Land Scam at Bhubaneswar where hundreds of Acres of Government land have 'been wrongly recorded infavour of private parties. In order to give a sealed cover to the above Land Scam, the Settlement and Consolidation Operation have been sought to be suspended/abandoned in the grab of Re-organization of Revenue Administration underthe patronage of such bureaucrats and politicians. Allegations of such Land Scam by Shri P.K. Tripathy, I.A.S. at Bhubaneswar is evident from the letter dt. 3.2.2003 of Charge Officer, Puri and letter dt. 3.5.2003 of G.A. Department. Copies of aforesaid letters dt. 3.2.2003 and dt. 3.5.2003 are Annexures-7 and 8 respectively.
5. Mr. Panda, sought to high light the fact that whereas the main objective of the, State is to provide single window system and computerization of records by issue of Land Pass Books, yet without completion of settlement operation and publication of final R.O.R. and Maps in respect of land holders, computerization and issue of Land Pass Books would be based upon archaic out dated records of earlier settlement made in the year 1920 and therefore, computerizing such records and issue of Land Pass Books on the basis of the same would serve no public purpose and would lead to chaos of multiple litigations.
6. Mr. J. Pattnaik, Learned Sr. Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 13959 of 2003 submitted that the decision of the Government to reorganize and amalgamate both, the Consolidation and Settlement operation under the Tahasil Administration is 'unreasonable' one and therefore, such reorganization will not serve 'public objectives'. Shri Patnaik further submitted that if reorganization as proposed is carried out, then it shall result in centralization of power in the hands of the Tahasildars and shall lead to collapse of the check and balance system in existence. He further submitted that the citizens of the State are getting relief at their door-step since the settlement and consolidation work are carried out in camps set up in villages where settlement and consolidation operation go on and he apprehends that if reorganization is carried out, then all this work will then have to be done at Tahasil level. Shri Patnaik submitted that integration of Consolidation and Settlement is sought to be made under the plea of 'computerization of land records' at Tahasil headquarters. He submitted that integration will have financial burden on the State as well as would require large scale amendment to various Acts and Rules i.e. Orissa Survey and Settlement Act and Rules, 1958 and Rules, 1962, Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of lands Act, 1972 and Rules, 1973, Orissa Revenue Administration (Unit) Act, 1963, Administration of Orissa State Order, 1948, Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949, Orissa Board of Revenue Rules, 1959 and Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Rules, 1959 and in the light of the above, he submitted that the Government without amending the aforesaid Acts and Rules suitably to the extent necessary, cannot go for integrating of Settlement and Consolidation organizations with Tahasil Administration by completely dismantling the existing set up.
7. Mr. Patnaik, further drew the attention of this Court to the development of the law relating to settlement of land in India and stated that the concept/process of settlement started from the time of Sher Shah Suri who was the father of settlement work in India. In pre-lndependence era, there was major settlement for the period 1920-32 and Orissa Servant Settlement Act was enacted in 1958. He further stated that in the year 1993, the Appu Committee was constituted to suggest measures for re-vamping of the revenue administration in the State, but even the said Appu Committee did not recommend integration of Settlement and Consolidation Organization with Tahasil Administration and rather suggested integration of Sub-Registrars Office with the Tahasil Office.
He further submitted that impugned resolution of Govt. of Orissa dated 6.12.2003 resolving to integrate Settlement and Consolidation Organization with the Tahasil Revenue Administration violated various provisions of Revenue Acts and Rules and in particular placed reliance on the averments contained in paragraph-37 of W.P.(C) No. 13959 of 2003 which is quoted below:
That in view of the averments made in the proceeding paragraphs, the decision of the Government under Annexure-1 without bringing about necessary amendment in the Orissa Surey & Settlement Act and Rules, 1958 and Rules 1962 and O.C.H.P.F.L. Act, 1972 and Rules 1973 and Orissa Revenue administration (Unit) Act 1963, Administration of Orissa State Order 1948, Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order 1949, Orissa Board of Revenue Rules, 1959, Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Rules, 1959 is out and out illegal, arbitrary, actuated with malafide/oblique motive and being violative of the aforesaid Rules is vulnerable to be challenged and hence, it being unsustainable on those scores, is liable to be interfered with and struck down.
8. Mr. Patnaik placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Railway Officers Association and Ors. v. Union of India : [2003]2SCR1085 , stated that judicial review of Govt. policy is permissible, though in a very limited manner. He submitted that the said decision lays down that a Court may interfere in policy matters where the policy or action is found to be inconsistent with the Constitution and further if the Court finds the policy is arbitrary, irrational or against abuse of such powers. Mr. Patnaik, placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1993 (II) OLR 476, wherein this Court held that a policy decision can be subject to judicial review and such policy decision should satisfy the test of reasonableness and must appear to be a reasonable decision seeking to achieve public good.
9. Mr. Patnaik, submitted that the objective of maintaining separate administration for Settlement and Consolidation operation is found in the body of the Resolution itself. According to Mr. Patnaik, Land records and Revenue should be kept separate since they are intended for independent purposes. Integrating the same is fallacious especially when settlement operation at various places is at a very advanced stage of operation and further that stopping such operation at such belated stage, would not only cause great amount of inconvenience to the common cjtizen, but also would amount to substantial wastage of public money.
10. Mr. R.K. Rath, Learned Sr. Advocate and Mr. J. Mohanty, Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the Petitioner and at the out set submitted that the policy resolution of the Govt. dated 6.12.2003 impugned in the present writ applications is in public interest and is a result of a great deal of application of mind by the Govt. and the Resolution of Govt. of Orissa itself provides the reason for the same which is quoted herein below:
In order to bring the Revenue Administration closer to the people and for the convenience of the general public, the proposal for re-organisation and re-orientation of the Revenue Field Administration was under active consideration of the Govt. for some time past. The govt., after careful consideration, have decided to (i) integrate the Settlement and Consolidation work into mainstream of Tahasil Administration. (ii) rationalize Revenue Administration at the Directorate, District, sub-divisional and Tahasil levels, and (iii) reorganize the existing Training Institutes in the following manner.
11. Sri Rath, submitted that the policy of the Govt. is aimed to tune up the revenue administration with a view to bring the general public within the process of administration by seeking to avoid approaching multiple authorities. He further submitted that this policy is a 'pro-people policy' and is aimed at preventing multiplicity of administrative authorities and, therefore, since the policy aims at promoting public interest, no objection against the same should be entertained by this Court. Sri Rath further sought to dispel the apprehension expressed by the Petitioners that the settlement and consolidation operation would come to a stand still, by stating that both the settlement and consolidation operations in field level are to continue and instead of having parallel separate offices, it was envisaged by the policy, to operate the same through Tahasil Office, Sub-Divisional Office and District Office through a 'single window system'. In fact, therefore, Sri Rath submitted that the apprehension expressed by the Petitioners that the Settlement and Consolidation Operations will be closed, is not correct and both Settlement and Consolidation work would continue through the mainstream of the revenue administration, i.e., Tahasils to avoid expenditure and for public convenience. Sri Rath further submitted that whereas the Govt. had appointed the Appu Committee to make its recommendation for re-vamping the Revenue administration and that the said Appu Committee had also recommended merger of the office of the Sub-Registrar with the office of Tahasildar, yet it was the 'prerogative of the Government' to accept the same and, therefore, the Govt. has decided in principle to constitute a 'single window delivery system' by merging office of Sub-Registrar with the office of Tahasildar with the objective of providing better service to the people. In this respect, Sri Rath submitted that all the employees of Settlement and Consolidation Operation having special training would be suitably deployed in Tahasil establishments and such technical personnel would discharge their same duty as they are presently discharging at Tahasil level by providing their service under a single window delivery system. Accordingly, the entire work of preparation of RORs. as well as maintenance of land records would center around one authority, i.e., Tahasildar. He submitted that the work of preparation of RORs. and its maintenance will continue to be conducted by and under the control of the Addl. Sub Collectors and Additional Chief Revenue Officers of the districts and that the apprehensions on the part of the Petitioners that the entire power for preparation and maintenance of RORs. would center round one authority, i.e. Tahasildar, is not correct. According to Sri Rath, once the land records in the State are completed the same would be a most beneficial scheme to the public at large and the Govt. of India is providing the necessary funds for the entire system to be computerized and implementation was being monitored by the State Level Steering Committee, which is manned by persons of very high standing and, therefore, the allegation of wasteful expenditure on computerization is utterly baseless. He submitted that the Govt. of Orissa has proposed to set up a web portal which would enable the general public to view their respective land records through the internet directly without depending upon local Revenue Inspectors and be able to access the Tahasil records. This has prompted both, Govt. of India and the Govt. of Orissa to assess the feasibility of digitization of cadastral survey maps and it is being examined through a Pilot Project. In effect Sri Rath submitted that the entire policy is to bring both the preparation and maintenance revenue administration under one window in order to provide quick and efficient service to the citizens of the State.
12. Sri Rath, placed reliance upon a further counter affidavit filed by Opposite Parties 1 and 2 through Sri Ranglal Jamuda, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department dated 15.4.2004. In this respect, it is important to take note of the fact that the aforesaid affidavit was filed by the Opposite Parties, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 2.3.2004 in W.P.(C) No. 7763 of 2003 wherein this Court after having perused an earlier counter affidavit of one Shri Bipin Bihari Mohapatra, Joint Secretary to Govt. in the Revenue Department sought for an additional affidavit by the Govt. in particular, relating to the allegations made in Paragraph-19 of the Writ Petition as well as disclosing the action taken by the State pursuant to Annexures-7 and 8 thereto.
13. Shri Rath, while placing reliance on the affidavit of Shri Ranglal Jamuda at the outset submitted that W.P.(C) No. 7763 of 2003 ought to be dismissed with cost since the allegations contained in the writ applications are aimed against one Shri P.K. Tripathy, I.A.S. who had retired from Govt. service w.e.f. 31.1.2002. Shri Rath submitted that from all the allegations made against the said officer, without making the said Retired Officer a party to the writ application, it would be clear that the grievances of the Petitioners are apparently 'personal vendetta' against the said officer and in this respect he submitted that a writ application styled as P.I.L. ought not to be entertained and should be dismissed with costs as it clearly exhibits the personal vendetta of the Petitioner.
Having raised the aforesaid contention, Shri Rath further goes on to explain the circumstance under which the State passed the Resolution impugned herein and while vehemently objecting to the allegation of corruption and nepotism made by the Petitioners stated that the Resolution for reorganization of Revenue administration is aimed to provide an efficient service to the land owners and general public of Orissa without any further/additional financial burden to the State. In this respect he submitted that the motive attributed by the Petitioners to the Resolution of the Government is a misconceived interpretation which is apparent from the baseless apprehensions on their part.
14. Shri Rath thereafter placed reliance upon a further affidavit filed on behalf of the State through Shri Tarun Kanti Mishra, Principal Secretary to Government in Revenue Department and in particular to the following averments contained in the said affidavit:
In order to dispel the doubts on the intention of the Government Policy and expedite the reforms/reorganization process, this affidavit is filed clarifying the following points.
(1) That Consolidation and Settlement operations will not be discontinued as a result of reorganization of revenue field administration. The operations will continue as per the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 and Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 and Rules made thereunder.
(2) That as and when the Consolidation/Settlement operations will be decided to be taken up under the above Acts, Govt. will take steps to ensure that statutory functions and duties as assigned to Deputy Director, Consolidation, Settlement Officer, Consolidation Officer, Asst. Settlement Officer, Asst. Consolidation Officer are discharged by eligible officers vested with statutory powers.
(3) That O.S.C.S. officers will be posted as Additional Tahasildars. They will discharge such of the duties of Addl. Tahasildars as would be assigned to them. They will also be deployed to work as ASOs/ACOs during settlement and consolidation operations.
(4) That these officers will continue to get the benefits of promotion under the existing provision of the O.AS. (Class-II) Recruitment Rules. Government will consider to provide better promotion avenues to O.S.C.S. officers in future having regard to the administrative requirements and their competence.
(5) That other employees of Settlement/Consolidation organization will be accommodated in equivalent grade/cadre in the Revenue Administration.
(6) That the technical staff of Settlement/Consolidation Organisations like Head Area Estimator/Draughtsman etc. will be kept under the disposal of Deputy Director, Survey & Map Publications, Orissa, Cuttack.
(7) That if the number of such employees will be much more than required at D.D.S. & M.P., Orissa, then suitable Branch Offices may be opened at places like Berhampur, Jeypore, Bhawanipatna, Sambalpur and Baripada to deal with technical aspects of Survey and Map Publication.
(8) That paragraph 5 of the Resolution will be suitably reviewed. Appropriate steps will be taken to modernize and strengthen training institutes for revenue officials, taking into account the present day needs.
(9) That Govt. have no hesitation to enquire into the allegations against Sri P.K. Tripathy, IAS, as made in the petitions. But since the allegation petitions are sub-judice, no enquiry could be taken up.
(10) That the reorganization/merger scheme has its own merits and has been implemented by the Govt. on such merits. Recommendations of the Appu Committee and the draft merger scheme prepared by Sri P.K. Tripathy, IAS, in his official capacity have a bearing on the scheme. Some of the observations of the Appu Committee (Chapter-5) are adopted with necessary changes while the decision on merger was reached.
(11) In order to provide manpower to update the land records in all the Tahasil Offices of the State, pursuant to the Government Resolution reorganizing Revenue Field Administration, Settlement/Consolidation operations in certain Kistwar Khanapuri/Provisional Consolidation Scheme stage was suspended vide orders communicated in Revenue Department letter No. 95731 dated 22.5.2002.
Since the above measure was resorted to temporarily to complete updation of land records and since the updation work is presently at a final stage, the State Government are considering to withdraw the circular dated 22.5.2002 and to carry out the Settlement/Consolidation work uninterruptedly as per the Resolution.
Under the above circumstances, and in larger public interest, it is fervently prayed that the Hon'ble High Court Orissa may be graciously pleased to vacate the interim stay order.
15. Shri Rath after drawing the attention of this Court to the facts of the case as well as the averments made by the Opp. Parties in various affidavits, placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India and Ors. : (2002)ILLJ550SC and stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles that:
xxx xxx It is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a Petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.
Sri Rath further placed reliance on a Judgment of a Supreme Court in the case of Neetu v. State of Punjab and Ors. : AIR2007SC758 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following dicta:
The Court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is a really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object.
Sri Rath further sought to question the locus standi of the Petitioners after placing reliance upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR2004SC1923 and stated that PIL is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. The said Court must be careful to see that the body of persons who are member of public and approach the Court are acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Supreme Court has further laid down that the petitions of such busy-bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
Sri Rath further placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (2006)10SCC645 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that in the process of judicial review of Government Policy Courts may ascertain as to whether there is any infirmity in decision making process and not in the decision itself.
16. In response to the plea of maintainability and locus standi of the Petitioners, Mr. Patnaik placed reliance upon a Judgment of this Court in the case of Bhabani Shankar Tripathy v. Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Home Department and Anr. 73 (1992) CLT 567 and on another case of this Court in the case of Sashibhusan Das v. State of Orissa and Ors. 89 (2000) CLT 598 and stated that the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts would indicate that the public interest litigations have been entertained not only at the instances of associations or organizations, but also at the instance of individuals interested in a common cause and now it is well established that Writ Petition may be moved not only by an aggrieved individual but also by a 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 redressal. According to Mr. Patnaik, it is well settled that Public Interest Litigation may be moved in relation to the subject matter in which, 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. Accordingly, he submitted that the Petitioner in his case is a public spirited person and has filed the present writ application in order to protect the interest of the general public. In so far as the back ground of the Petitioner is concerned, he submitted that the Petitioner is a social activist and a Trade Union Leader.
17. Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 7763 of 2003 similarly submitted that the Petitioners are public spirited persons and have filed the present writ application in order to protect and safeguard public interest.
At the closure of the hearing, Mr. Panda placed reliance upon Annexure-17 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by him on 11.8.2007, which was a communication dated 7.9.2006 addressed by the Member, Board of Revenue to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government. This Court by its Order Dated 20.8.2007 had directed Mr. R.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate for the O.P. to produce the file and the original letter dated 7.9.2006 written by the Member, Board of Revenue and pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the same was produced for perusal of the Court on 22.8.2007.
18. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid contentions advanced by the Learned Counsel for rival parties, the following three issues arise for consideration in both these writ applications:
(i) Whether the Petitioners possess necessary locus standi to file the present public interest litigations?
(ii) Whether the Policy Resolution of the Government of Orissa dated 6.12.2003 deciding to integrate the settlement and consolidation work with Tahasil administration was inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power of the State?
(iii) Whetherthe Policy decision of the State of Orissa dated 6.12.2003 withstood the test of reasonableness and sub-serve public good?
19. In so far as issue No. (i) relating to locus standi of the Petitioners is concerned, it is necessary to deal with the two writ applications involved in the present Judgment individually. In W.P.(C) No. 7763 of 2003, we find that the Petitioners therein claim to be the cultivators, social workers. They collectively claim to be the citizens of India and permanent residents of State of Orissa and have filed the present writ application on behalf of the general public at large. From the averments made in Paragraph-19 of the writ application noted earlier, it would be clear that one of the objectives of the Public Interest Litigation was a personal vendetta against one Shri P.K. Tripathy, IAS (since retired). Averment in the Writ Petition alleging corruption on the part of Shri Tripathy states that there is a deep rooted conspiracy and unholy nexus amongst the bureaucrats and the politicians and that the said Shri P.K. Tripathy was responsible for the alleged land scam at Bhubaneswar. The aforesaid allegation of the Petitioners has been dealt with by the Opposite Parties in their counter affidavit and the said allegation has been denied stating that computerization of the land records started in the year 1989. Shri P.K. Tripathy IAS (since retired) the then Director of Land Records and Survey had submitted a proposal regarding reorganization of revenue field administration in view of the recommendation of Cabinet Sub-Committee meeting held on 5.1.2000, vide his letter dated 5.6.2000. He further submitted that Sri P.K. Tripathy retired from service on 31.1.2002 and various other steps taken by the State Government have been stated in the said affidavit. In fact we find that although Petitioners have sought to challenge the amalgamation of the settlement and consolidation authorities with that of the District Revenue Administration, under the guise of such challenge, they seem to have been motivated by a personal vendetta against the said Shri P.K. Tripathy.
20. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neetu v. State of Punjab and Ors. : AIR2007SC758 , in Paragraph-12 which is quoted below:
When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the Court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other malafide object.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment while categorically reiterating the scope of Public Interest Litigation and the cases in which such PIL should be entertained, has also cautioned the Court from exercising its jurisdiction in the following manner:
The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Same persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of ha bit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary casts.
It is seen that the Petitioners have leveled allegations of corruption and nepotism against one Sri P.K. Tripathy, IAS (since retired). We are constrained to note that the Petitioners and their bonafide becomes suspect since they have not impleaded the said Shri P.K. Tripathy as an Opposite Party to the writ application. Obviously, therefore, the said Shri P.K. Tripathy against whom many allegations have been made, has not been afforded an opportunity to meet Petitioners' allegation. We are further constrained to note that it has become quite common practice that PILs are being used clearly with oblique purpose and for personal vendetta. We are of the view that the present case is one such example where the Petitioners have chosen to file such Writ Petitions styled as PILs apparently motivated by this personal vendetta. We are constrained to dismiss these writ applications on the ground of lack of locus standi an the part of the Petitioners. While we were considering to impose costs on the Petitioners for having used PIL for the purpose of their own personal vendetta, we refrain from to do so since the issues raised and the policy sought to be challenged in these Writ Petitions are of wide public importance.
21. In W.P.(C) No. 13959 of 2003, the Petitioner claims to be the social activist and closely associated with many social organizations/institutions. He is also a leading Trade Union leader of Jagatpur Industrial Estate. We are in agreement with the contentions advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that it is well settled that, a Writ Petition may be moved not only by an aggrieved individual, but also by a public spirited individual or a journalist or a social action group for enforcement of the constitutional or legal right of the public at large and further such Petitioner need not individually specify the injury that he is likely to suffer and the public in general are interested in the vindication of some right or the enforcement of some duty. Therefore, the Petitioner in this case being a public-spirited person has filed the present Writ Petition for the interest of the general public can be entertained. In this respect we may make a reference to the earlier decisions of this Court in the case of Bhabani Shankar Tripathy v. Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Home Department and Anr. 73 (1992) CLT 567, Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1993 (II) OLR 476 and Sashibhusan Das v. State of Orissa and Ors. 89 (2000) CLT 598. We reject the contentions advanced by the Opposite Parties against the maintainability of the Writ Petition and decided the issue of locus standi in favour of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 13959 of 2003.
22. Before proceeding further in the present ease it is necessary to take note of the principles of law that have evolved over the decades on the issue of the extent to which a writ Court could exercise its jurisdiction in the matter of policy decision by the executive government. In the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR2000SC3751 , Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the majority stated as follows:
It is now well settled that the Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision..
While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the Courts does not transgress its jurisdiction, there is, in our constitutional framework, a farley clear demarcation of powers. The Court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the Court's jurisdiction.
At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power, the Court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The Courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution cast on it, a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The Court's must, therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in a matter of policy, the Court will not interfere.
The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court has been reiterated and reaffirmed by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Railway Officers Association and others v. Union of India : [2003]2SCR1085 , in which it has been held as follows:
12. In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved by the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise Court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power, the Court will not interfere with such matters.
23. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, and the principles enunciated therein, we now proceed to consider Issue No. 2. This issue brings into question the Policy Resolution of the Government of Orissa dated 6.12.2003 deciding to integrate the settlement and consolidation operation into the Tahasil and Revenue administration to assess whether the said policy was inconsistent with constitutional safeguard and/or any law made therein and further whether the said policy is arbitrary, irrational and amounts to an abuse of powers of the State.
In course of hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioners essentially submitted that the impugned policy decision of the State Government though claims to be in the interest of the common citizen, yet, effecting such amalgamation as contemplated under the policy without carrying out necessary amendments to the related statutes 'would be unlawful. In this respect, Mr. Patnaik submitted that various acts and rules such as Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, and Rules, 1948 and Rules 1962; O.C.H.P.F.L. Act, 1972 and Rules 1973; Orissa Revenue Administration (Unit) Act, 1963, Administration of Orissa State Order, 1948; Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949; Orissa Board of Revenue Rules, 1959 and Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Rules, 1959 are required to be suitably amended in order to give effect to the policy decision of the State Govt. Apart from this contention, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners did not raise nor pointed out any constitutional invalidity or violation of any law of the union or the State in promulgating the impugned policy. In this respect, it is necessary to take note of the counter affidavit filed by the State where the State has repeatedly stated that it would carry out necessary amendment as and when necessary and, therefore, the grievance of the Petitioners on this score no longer subsists. The State in its counter affidavit has categorically stated that it would carry out necessary amendments that would be necessary in order to give effect to their own policy decision.
In view of the aforesaid conclusion, Issue No. 2 is answered against the Petitioners and in favour of the State and we are of the view that the Policy Resolution of the Govt. of Orissa dated 6.12.2003 is not inconsistent with any Constitutional provision nor any law enacted by the State and the Union. We further declare that the said resolution is neither arbitrary, irrational nor does it amount to abuse of the powers of the State.
24. We are now left with the last issue which is to be dealt with in the present case i.e., Issue No. 3, i.e., Whether the Policy decision of the State of Orissa dated 6.12.2003 withstood the test of reasonableness and would sub-serve public good.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners vehemently submitted that although the apparent object of the policy is to provide a 'single window system' in the matters relating to land records and revenue, yet by directing closure of settlement and consolidation operation which are at the very advanced stage, same would not be in public interest and will not sub-serve public good. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further reiterated that updating of land records at Tahasil level would not sub-serve public purpose.
In this respect, strong reliance was placed by the Petitioners on the letter of the Member, Board of Revenue which has been appended as Annexure-17 to the rejoinder affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 7763 of 2003.
25. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that Annexure-17 dated 7th. September, 2006 has been considered by the State and the State have approved the said letter only in so far as it relates to withdrawal of the letter of the Director, Consolidation No. 6367/DRS dated 30.8.2006 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack. In other words, Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the State Government has approved the action taken by the Member, Board of Revenue vide Annexure-17 under the cover of its own letter dated 2.5.2007 (Annexure-18) only to the limited extent noted herein above
26. The file pertaining to the letter of the member, Board of Revenue (Annexure-17) and the action taken thereon was called for by this Court in course of hearing of the cases and on perusal of the same, we find that various issues raised by the Member, Board of Revenue are under active consideration of the State Government. The State Government in its counter affidavit has been repeatedly reiterating the apprehension on the part of the Petitioners that the consolidation and settlement operations would be discontinued and that various irregularities in land records in so far as Bhubaneswar and Puri are concerned, would thereby be buried, was not a fact. Each affidavit on behalf of the State Government reiterates that consolidation and settlement operation which are in advance stage would not be discontinued and would continue even after the amalgamation and further the State Government have been reiterating their resolve to take all necessary steps to protect State's interest at all level.
On consideration of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that in implementation of a policy decision of the State Government, various suggestions may come from various sources highlighting problems and/or suggesting improvements, but mere making of such suggestion, cannot form the basis to challenge to a policy decision. It is within the competence of the State Government to take a policy decision and it is also within its competence to effect modification or amendment thereto in due course of time. But, merely because certain issues have been highlighted by certain senior Government Officers that cannot form the basis of challenge to a policy of the Government.
27. It is a settled principle of law that the primary consideration of a Policy decision is 'public interest' and since the main object of the impugned policy decision is to protect the interest of common citizens providing them with single window system for land records and revenue, the same is definitely in the interest of general public. In this respect a reference may be made to the case of Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (2006)10SCC645 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering amalgamation of two Banks reiterated the principle that while factual scenario involves have been rightly considered and discussed prior to taking a decision of amalgamation, the same does not necessitate interference by any Court of law. Before considering the objectives of the policy, if interest of the land owners/common citizens are protected by providing single window system, the same would be definitely 'good reason' for effecting such Policy decision.
We are of the view that in the case of Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1993 (II) OLR 476, Chief Justice B.L. Hansaria, as His Lordship the then was, after taking note of Judicial review in the matters of Policy decision, came to hold that whereas the original policy decision of the State was of 'public good', yet the later amendment/change thereof was held to be against 'public good'. That was a case in which the original policy decision was up-held, but the Court did not find good reasons for the cancellation of the same letter.
Following the dicta of this Court in the aforesaid Judgment, we have perused the impugned policy at great length and find that there exists a clear, very definite and good reason in the stand of the State Government for the impugned policy decision and the said reasons are clearly in public interest and in public good.
28. In view of the findings arrived on the issues framed in the present case, we are of the considered view that the impugned policy decision of the State Government does not warrant any interference in so far as the issues raised by the Member, Board of Revenue are concerned, it is open for the State Government to consider the same in course of implementation of the policy decision.
29. Before parting, we are constrained to observe the circumstances under which the letter of the Member, Board of Revenue under Annexure-17 has come to be issued. The reason why the Member, Board of Revenue has issued such a letter, is available in its last paragraph which reads as follows:
I have verbally informed the Advocate General, Orissa on the withdrawal of the letter from Director, Consolidation and Settlement so that any move by the Bar Association or any affected party should be scuttled.
From the above it appears that the letter was written since he was informed by the Advocate General of the likelihood of an agitation in the event the letter of the Director, Settlement and Consolidation is not withdrawn. We are indeed surprised how can a responsible senior officer in the Government address such a letter on verbal communication of mere threat of agitation. On a reading of the said letter, we also find that the Member, Board of Revenue has assigned various reasons for his cancellation of the letter issued by the Director, Consolidation de-notifying the settlement operations. We are surprised that he has taken note of the possibility that in the event the Notification is effected, the people will rather prefer to take the matter to the High Court so that the Notification will be stopped and in paragraph-12 of his letter, the Member, Board of Revenue has noted as follows:
Moreover, when the merger of settlement and consolidation in Tahasil organization is now subjudice in Orissa High Court through a PIL, a letter like one, which the Director had issued, would pave the way for a case of contempt of the Orissa High Court. Therefore, I had to take promptly action of withdrawing this letter from its inception.
We have extensively dealt with various aspects dealt with in the letter under reference only to highlight the fact that the possibility of moving the High Court and the possibility of contempt proceeding in a pending PIL have been used as reasons, for directing cancellation of the letter issued by the Director, Consolidation. We express our surprise and anguish about such assumption of the Member, Board of Revenue. It is clear that the Member, Board of Revenue acted on mere surmise and conjecture and admittedly he had not received any communication in writing from the office of the Advocate General. We conclude this Judgment by noting a caution to ail the Officers of the State Government and especially the Officers holding such high posts, to act only on the materials on record. In matters of Government Policy, it is within the competence of the authorities concerned to draw the attention of the Government to various aspects of the policy.
30. We record our strong disapproval of the irresponsible manner in which the letter has been written and the language in which it is couched. We do not wish to say anything further and leave the matter at that.
31. We also place on record our surprise how such a communication of the Member, Board of Revenue to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department could come to the possession of the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 7763 of 2003.
32. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not answer the Court's query about the source and the manner in which his client obtained a copy of such a letter.
33. In the light of the findings arrived by us on the issues framed in this case and in the light of the discussions made herein above, both the writ applications are dismissed, but in the circumstances without any costs. The policy resolution of the Government of Orissa dated 6.12.2003 amalgamating Settlement and Consolidation operation with the Tahasil and Revenue administration is upheld as being reasonable and as having been done in the interest of public good. It is left open to the State to take necessary steps to enforce its policy decision by taking all necessary steps as it deems just and proper for the purpose of attaining its objectives.
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.
34. I agree.