Ajay Mohan Goel JUDGMENT
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Communication dated 12th March, 2018 (Annexure P-7), vide which, the office of Additional Chief Secretary (Public Works Department), Government of Himachal Pradesh has informed the office of Engineer-in-Chief (Public Works Department) that the matter regarding construction of new PWD Rest House Kutara, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla was reviewed by the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 26th February, 2018 and the same has been cancelled.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are as under:
An announcement was made by the then Chief Minister of the State on 2nd June, 2017 for sanctioning of a PWD Rest House at village Kutara during the tour of Rohru Constituency in District Shimla. This was followed by issuance of a Communication dated 7th June, 2017 (Annexure P-1) from the office of the Chief Minister to the office of Additional Chief Secretary (Public Works Department), Government of Himachal Pradesh as also Engineer-in-Chief (Public Works Department), Himachal Pradesh that necessary action be taken and compliance sent with regard to the announcement made by the Chief Minister.
3. Vide Communication dated 12th October, 2017 (Annexure P-5) addressed by the office of Additional Chief Secretary (Public Works) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to Chief Engineer (South Zone), Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, it was conveyed that Administrative Approval & Expenditure Sanction amounting to ` 107.00 lacs stood accorded subject to restriction of funds during the financial year 2017-2018. This decision of the Government of construction of a new PWD Rest House at Kutara stood reviewed by the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 26th February, 2018 and the same has been cancelled, which action of the State stands assailed by way of this writ petition.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that the decision of the State to cancel the construction of the above mentioned Rest House is arbitrary, as once the competent authority has sanctioned the construction of the Rest House, such Government decision ordinarily cannot be reviewed. It has further been contended that the set procedure for reviewing a Cabinet decision has not been followed and further there was no justification for cancelling the construction of new Rest House, as all steps required stood taken by the appropriate authorities in this regard. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the following judgments:
1. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others MANU/SC/0994/2004 : (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 625.
2. State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others MANU/SC/2206/2006 : (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 683.
3. State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. K. Shyam Sunder and others (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 737.
4. Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation Vs. B. Narasimha Reddy and others MANU/SC/1020/2011 : (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 286.
5. On the other hand, the stand of the State is that general elections for State Legislature were held in the month of September, 2017 and after the Change of Guard, the proposal of construction of Rest House at village Kutara was reviewed in the Cabinet and it was observed that the occupancy in surrounding Rest Houses at Sungri and Rohroo was less than 20% and moreover the place where Rest House was proposed to be constructed, is an isolated place, away from major District road, at a distance of about 15 kms. from village link road, namely, Kansa-Koti-Kutara-Dalgaon and there was no justification to construct a Rest House at the said place, as already there were two Rest Houses and one Circuit House in existence within a radius of 15-16 Kms. from the proposed site of the Rest House. As per the State, if a decision is not based on requirement, equity and fair play, then it has the right to review such a decision in the interest of equity and fair play.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.
7. In deference to order dated 29th October, 2018, the original record pertaining to the meeting of Cabinet held on 26.02.2018 has also been produced by the State for the perusal of the Court.
8. Record demonstrates that the announcement to set up the Rest House in issue was made by the then Chief Minister of the State during his tour to Rohru Constituency on 2nd June, 2017. This was followed by preparation of a proposal by the Administrative Department for release of additional funds amounting to ` 107.66 lacs for the proposed Rest House and the Administrative Department was called upon to obtain prior approval of the Cabinet. The construction of the said Rest House at Kutara was approved by the Cabinet in its meeting held on 4th October, 2017.
9. Record also demonstrates that in January, 2018, decision was taken by the Chief Minister to review all Cabinet decisions taken during the last six months. As the approval of the Council of Ministers for the construction of Rest House in issue was accorded in its meeting dated 4th October, 2017, therefore, this matter was also put up for the purpose of review. A self speaking Memorandum for consideration of Council of Ministers was accordingly prepared. It was mentioned in the same that Kutara was about 16 Kms. from Rohru; Rohru has a Circuit House with 7 rooms and a Rest House with 9 rooms; there was another Rest House at Sungri at a distance of 30 Kms. from Rohru and 34 Kms. from Kutara; and there were four rooms in the Rest House at Sungri with an average occupancy of 20%. It was further mentioned therein that in view of this, construction of new Rest House at Kutara does not appear to be justified purely from an administrative view point. It was also mentioned therein that prior approval of the Chief Minister to Review the decision of construction of said Rest House had already been obtained. On the basis of said Memorandum, the Cabinet in its meeting held on 26th February, 2018, cancelled the proposal of construction of Rest House.
10. The above facts clearly demonstrate that the decision to cancel the construction of Rest House at village Kutara was taken by the Cabinet upon consideration of a Memorandum, which was placed before it specifically for the said purpose. Not only this, the justification for cancellation of Rest House given in the Memorandum is reasonable and not arbitrary, as alleged by the petitioner. Thus, here it is not a case where the earlier proposal was rejected by the Cabinet without there being any cogent material placed before it.
11. In our considered view, the factum of there being one Circuit House and two Rest Houses in close vicinity is prudent and plausible reason to have had reviewed the proposal of construction of new Rest House.
12. At this stage, we will also briefly refer to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
13. In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others MANU/SC/0994/2004 : (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 625, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any Statute or Rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria.
14. In State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others MANU/SC/2206/2006 : (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 683, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely because there was a change in the Government, there was no necessity for reviewing all decisions taken by the previous Government.
15. In State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. K. Shyam Sunder and others MANU/SC/0911/2011 : (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 737, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless it is found that act done by the authority earlier in existence is either contrary to statutory provisions, is unreasonable, or is against public interest, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power.
16. In Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation Vs. B. Narasimha Reddy and others MANU/SC/1020/2011 : (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 286, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the matter of the Government of a State, the succeeding Government is duty bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job of the previous Government, for the reason that the action is that of the "State" and thus, unless the act done by the previous Government is found to be contrary to the statutory provisions, unreasonable or against policy, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power. Hon'ble Court has further held that "Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law" and the Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interest and nepotism, etc. as the principles of governance have to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play. The decision must be taken in good faith and must be legitimate.
17. It cannot be doubted at all that the Governments are in continuity and simply because there is a Change of Guard, the decisions earlier taken by the Government can be or should be allowed to be undone subsequently in a mechanical manner. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, has no applicability. The impugned decision of the Government is prudent and reasonable and further it cannot be said that the Government per se does not has any right to review an earlier decision taken by it, simply because there is a Change in Guard. The reasoning, as it emerges from the record, cannot be said to be so unreasonable so as to call for any interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction by this Court. This Court, thus, finds no infirmity with the decision taken by the State to review and cancel the construction of proposed Rest House at Kutara.
18. In view of above, as we do not find any merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.