1. The petitioners have presented this public interest petition and have assailed the notification dated 26.12.2009 issued by the first, respondent by impugning the same at Annexure-J to the petition insofar as it declares Yadgir town as the head quarters of the new district consisting of the area of Yadgir, Shahapur and Shorapur Taluks. The petitioners have also sought for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the first respondent to declare Shahapur town as the headquarters of the new district and utilise the existing facilities and the government buildings which is presently with the second respondent.
3. The brief facts are that the newly formed Yadgir district was carved out of Gulbarga district by including Yadgir, Shahapur and Shorapur Taluks as part of Yadgir district. Yadgir was also chosen as the new headquarter and the notification dated 26.12.2009 as at Annexure-J came to be issued. Though several details with regard to the manner in which the said decision was arrived has been adverted to by the petitioner, the issue which has been raised for consideration is with regard to the headquarter that would be appropriate for Yadgir district. In this regard, it is contended that the Taluks of Jewargi, Shahapur and Shorapur are situated within the River basin of Bhima River and Krishna River while Yadgir Taluk is situated to the east of Bhima River and the said river happens to be the boundary of Shahapur Taluk and Yadgir Taluk. The government implemented the upper Krishna Project with Almatti and Narayanapura dam and in that context, it is contended that vast extent of lands were acquired and huge infrastructure was developed at Bhimarayanagudi which is located at about 5kms from Shahapur town. An extent of 297 acres was acquired and the administrative office building of 30.000 sq. ft built up area was constructed and the office of the Command Area Development Authority (CADA for short) was also constructed. In addition, the office and the different categories of quarters and all other infrastructure for a township was also constructed. It is in that context, the petitioners contend that the said infrastructure which is already existing in the vicinity of Shahapur, could be utilised for housing the different government offices in the headquarters and as such it would be appropriate to locate the district headquarters at Shahapur instead of Yadgri.
4. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that even though one man commission known as Vasudeva Rao Commission was appointed and gave its report in February 1975, the same was not acted upon. Thereafter another committee tinder the Chairmanship of Sri Hundekar was appointed in 1984 to recommend regarding reorganisation of districts. The said committee submitted its report in 1987. Yet another committee known as Gaddigowdar committee was also appointed by the Government. Both the said committees recommended bifurcation of Gulbarga District and Yadgir was suggested as the head quarters for the newly carved out District. Hence, the expert committees have also not considered Shahapur as favourable. Accordingly a policy decision was taken by the Government. In this regard, the cabinet decision No. 190/2008 was taken on 26.09.2008. A cabinet Subcommittee was formed to decide the Talukas to be included. It is contended that Shorapur, Shahapur and Yadgir Taluks were recommended to be included with Yadgir as head quarters. The matter is said to have been placed before the Cabinet on 27.08.2009 which was approved. Pursuant thereto a Gazette Notification dated 15.09.2009 under Section 4(4) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, came to be issued calling for objections. On considering the same, the final notification dated 26.12.2009 is stated to have been issued and the District has come into existence on 30.12.2009. Insofar as infrastructure, it is contended that the offices are housed in Government as well as private buildings. The amount of Rs.25 Crores allotted has also been expended on various projects and infrastructure. The decision of the Government has also been announced in the Legislative Assembly on 23.12.2009. At this stage, there is no scope whatsoever for disturbing the settled position and as such it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
5. Since the petitioners had stated with regard to the existing buildings in Bhimarayanagudi, the Superintending Engineer (KBJLL) by his affidavit dated 01.09.2010 furnished details with regard to the nature of existence of the building and also the manner in which the said buildings tire being put to use. The petitioners however filed a counter affidavit pointing out that certain rooms and buildings are vacant and a statement with regard to the allotment of houses in Krishna CADA Bhimarayanagudi is filed to point out that certain of the quarters are vacant while a few are unauthorisedly occupied.
6. On considering the rival contentions, it is seen that the Government has taken the decision with regard to the formation of the district and to have Yadgir as its headquarters after keeping in view the recommendations made by the respective committees referred to above. Thereafter, the proposal was approved b}' the cabinet and also cabinet subcommittee had been formed The entire process with regard to the carving out of the Yadgir district from the larger Guibarga District was a policy decision of the Government based on all necessary inputs.
7. Though the petitioners have assailed the decision of the Government insofar as notifying that Yadgir would be the headquarters of the district on the ground that Shahapur would be more suitable due to its location and the available infrastructure, that in it cannot be a reason for this Court to interfere with the policy decision taken by the Government. Even with regard to the infrastructure available at Shahapur. It has been pointed out that the same is being used for other purposes and merely because the petitioners have attempted to point out that a few of the buildings are vacant, the same cannot, alter the situation.
8. In any view of the matter, the Honble Supreme Court while considering a similar issue with regard to the creation of new district in the case of STATE OF UP AND ORS VS. CHOUDHAR1 RANBEER SINGH [2008 AIR SCW 2296] has held the same to be a policy decision by the Government and that the Courts will have no occasion to interfere and that the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters so long as the infringement of fundamental right: is not shown. It has been emphasised that in assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government, the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government. In the light of the above, we see no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.