1 2025:CGHC:11151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5826 of 2024 1 - Ghasiya Ram Sahu S/o Suran Sahu Aged About 54 Years Occupation - Licensee Stamp Vendor, In The Office Of Sub- Registrar, Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- R/o Village Govindvan, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanjay Kumar Dewangan, S/o Amirudh Prasad Dewangan, Aged About 47 Years Licensee Document Writer, Sub- Registrar Office- Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- R/o Ward No. 14, Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prabhat Kumar Khandekar, S/o Late Biharilal Khndekar, Aged About 26 Years Licensee Document Writer, Sub- Registrar Office- Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- R/o Village - Jamgahan, Tahsil - Bhatgaon, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Tulsi Prasad Dewangan, Aged About 38 Years Licensee Document Writer, Sub- Registrar Office- Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- R/o Ward No. 9, Raj Mahal Gali, Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Gulab Khan S/o Haibat Khan Aged About 55 Years Licensee Document Writer, Sub- Registrar Office- Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- R/o Sadakpara, Pandripani, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Balak Ram Jangde S/o Mandaru Ram Aged About 58 Years Licensee Document Writer, Sub- Registrar Office- Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- R/o Ward No. 3, Sardhabhatha Balpur, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.07 18:45:32 +0530 2 7 - Anup Kumar Manhar, S/o Kartik Ram Manhar, Aged About 45 Years Licensee Document Writer, Sub- Registrar Office- Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- R/o Village Tundra, Tahsil Kasdol, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax (Registration), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Registrar, Registrar Officer, Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tahsildar, Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhatgaon, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sub Registrar, Bilaigarh, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners who are claiming to be Licensee Stamp Vendors and Document Writers in the office of Sub- Registrar, Bilaigarh1, questioning the notification dated 17/01/2024 (Annexure-P/1) issued by Respondent/State, whereby a new Sub- Registrar Office at Bhatgaon has been opened. 1 Respondent No.6 3 2. (I) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are Licensee Stamp Vendors and Document Writers, who are working in the premises of respondent No.6. Their such work are only source of bread and butter for them and they along with their families are fully dependent on such work. He would further submit that opening of a new Sub-Registrar Office at Bhatgaon shall adversely affect the earning of the petitioner and will cause irreparable loss to them too, because out of 222 villages, 149 villages will fall within the jurisdiction of new Sub- Registrar Office and only 77 villages will be remain within the jurisdiction of respondent No.6. (II) Learned counsel would next submit that out of total villages of 222, most of the villages are having the population of Schedule Tribes and for registration of the land, the permission of respondent No.2 is usually required, but after opening the new Sub-Registrar Office at Bhatgaon, they will have to face adversity for registration of land. Therefore, he prays to quash of the notification dated 17/01/2024 (Annexure-P/1). 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the petitioners, who are working in the premises of respondent No.6, are questioning the bifurcation of Sub-Registrar Office, Bilaigarh and creation of new Sub-Registrar, at Bhatgaon, however, they have no locus to question the same. He would next submit that mere loss of earning to the petitioners, may not be a ground to question any Policy decision of the State Govt., who has reconstituted the new Sub-Registrar Office at Bhatgaon. The decision to constitute a Sub-Registrar Office at 4 Bhatgaon is only for the benefit of the general public, which cannot be questioned by the petitioners who are Stamp Vendors and Documents Writers, by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Writ Petition has no merits and the same may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the petitioners as they are questing the notification dated 17/01/2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the State Govt. has opened a new Sub- Registrar Office at Bhatgaon. 5. From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioners are Stamp Vendors and Documents Writer, who are working in the premises of respondent No.6 and has questioned the notification dated 17/01/2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the State Govt. has opened a new Sub-Registrar Office at Bhatgaon while keeping 149 villages within the jurisdiction of Sub- Registrar, Bhatgaon and while reducing the villages which were earlier within the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar, Bilaigarh. 6. The alleged bias-ness of the constitution of Sub-Registrar at Bhatgaon has been questioned by the petitioners because their earning would be adversely affected as the petitioners and their family members are dependent on such earning. 7. While dealing with challenge to similar policy formulated by the State Government in the year 2006, the Division Bench of this Court in Mukesh Kumar Goswami & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others2 has held thus: 2 WP No. 3839/ 2006 (decided on 27-07-2006) 5 3. The power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution to review a policy decision of the State is very much circumscribed and limited by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts. The wisdom behind the policy decision of the State which is evolved to achieve certain goals which are not obnoxious to the Constitution or law cannot lightly be interfered with by the reviewing Court. As the Courts repeatedly held, the Courts will not normally interfere with the policy decisions of the Government and Government authorities; the Court must exercise power of juridical review with circumspection. The wisdom in a policy decision of the Government or statutory authorities, as such, is not justiciable unless such policy decision is capricious, arbitrary, whimsical so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution or any statutory or constitutional provision. The only thing to be seen by the Court when a policy decision is assailed is whether the policy in question is arbitrary or violative of any mandatory provisions of law. In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India3 , it was held that unless policy decision is inconsistent with the Constitution or any law, Court must exercise jurisdiction with circumspection, particularly, when the issues are intertwined with policy decision and technical issues. In Sitaram Co. v. Union of India 4, the Apex Court held that the Court does not possess the expertise required to determine the matter and the determination has been made by experts appointed by the Government. In Sher Singh v. Union of lndia5, the Court opined that there shall be no judicial review if the policy decision is neither unfair nor mala fide. In A.M.S.A. Karmachari Santh. v. State6, the Court has opined that a policy decision shall not be normally questioned in a Court of law and the Court cannot find fault with discrimination based on policy. 3 (1996) 9 SCC 709 4 AIR 1990 SC 1277 5 (1995) 6 SCC 515 6 (1996) 9 SCC 186 6 5. Keeping in mind the above noted well- settled principles and parameters of judicial review, let us proceed to consider the points urged by Shri V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. We are at a loss to understand how the impugned policy insofar as it provides for conducting counseling in order to know the preferences of the teachers who are likely or liable to be transferred to different places where vacancies or shortage for teachers exist would be condemned as arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. On the other hand, it is our considered option that the said provision is very much in consonance with the role of the modern State which has changed from patriarchal role to matriarchal role. That is why modern States are called welfare Sf- ates. If the Government think that before transferring teachers from the present places of working to other places it would be appropriate to know the choice of such teachers and accordingly it makes a provision to conduct counseling to know the teachers' preferences, such a healthy measure providedby the State in the policy decision could not be condemned as arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore, that part of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is meritless and liable to be rejected in limine” 8. The Supreme Court in Greater Kailash Part II Welfare Assn. And Others v. DLF Universal Ltd. and Others7, held that the writ Court should not ordinarily interfere with the decision taken by the expert body. The Supreme Court held thus in para 56 : “56. From the materials on record there is no ambiguity that sanction was granted to respondent 1 to make the above-mentioned conversion strictly in accordance with the Rules and Building Bye Laws, even to the point of 7 (2007) 6 SCC 448 7 consultation by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) on the specific problem apprehended by the appellants. It is only after clearance was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) that a No- Objection Certificate was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and sanction was granted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Although, it has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) had mechanically given his consent to the plan, we have to respect his decision and the decision of the Municipal Corporation who are the experts in such matters. ” 9. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Rakesh Kumar Keshari and Another8, the Supreme Court has considered the scope of judicial review in matters considered and decided by the executive authorities on subject, which falls within their exclusive domain. The Supreme Court in para 28 held thus : 28) This Court in Johri Mal case has further held that the question is required to be determined in each case having regard to the nature of and extent of authority vested in the State. After holding that the power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role or don the robes of the omnipresent, this Court has, in terms, ruled that the power of judicial review is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the Courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the Constitution to the other organs of the State and has 8 (2011) 5 SCC 341 8 further cautioned that the Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. 10. The grounds raised by the petitioners to challenge the notification for constitution of Sub-Registrar Office at Bhatgaon is not sufficient and only on the basis of such ground, the writ petition cannot be entertained because it is also a policy decision of the State Govt to constitute a newly Sub-Registrar Office, after examining all aspects and the petitioners cannot questioned the same by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without showing any arbitrariness and illegality in the decision taken by the State Govt. 11. For the foregoing and considering the limited scope of interference available to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters where policy decision has been taken by the State, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul