1 2025:CGHC:60893-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6489 of 2025 Umakant Barik S/o Shri Chudamani Barik Aged About 43 Years R/o Pretandih, Kendudhar, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner/ Registrar Of Cooperative Societies For Chhattisgarh, Block - B, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/12/2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. for respondent/ state. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.16 10:56:30 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following relief:- “i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to amend the impugned Gazette Notification dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P/5) issued by respondent No. 1/Secretary, Department of Cooperative Societies, Raipur to the extent of granting approval for establishing the reorganized Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society at Village Pretandih. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to grant any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioner including cost of the petition.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, a farmer of Village Pretandih, District Mahasamund, challenges the final notification dated 15.10.2025 whereby Village Pretandih was merged into PACS Bagaijor. It is stated that under the PACS Reorganization Scheme, 2025, the State Government had earlier issued an order dated 02.04.2025, duly published in the Gazette on 03.04.2025, creating a separate PACS “Pretandih” comprising Villages Pretandih, Baidpali, Balsi, Kokdi and Bhikhapali. Subsequently, by notification dated 07.08.2025, a revised reorganization was proposed inviting objections, pursuant to which the petitioner and other farmers objected and sought retention of PACS Pretandih, 3 even receiving a recommendation dated 05.10.2025 from the Hon’ble Finance Minister in their favour. Despite this, the impugned notification dated 15.10.2025 was issued merging Pretandih with PACS Bagaijor, which is assailed in the present petition seeking restoration of PACS Pretandih as earlier notified. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inclusion of Village Pretandih in PACS Bagaijor has caused severe hardship to local farmers in accessing cooperative and credit facilities. It is contended that the State Government had already taken a final decision to constitute a separate PACS “Pretandih” vide order dated 02.04.2025, published in the Gazette on 03.04.2025, creating a legitimate expectation among farmers, which has been arbitrarily defeated by the subsequent notifications dated 07.08.2025 and 15.10.2025 without assigning any reasons. It is further submitted that the reversal of the earlier notified decision and merger with PACS Bagaijor is arbitrary, non-speaking, and violative of Article 14, as objections of the farmers and even the recommendation dated 05.10.2025 of the Hon’ble Minister were ignored. The counsel also points out the geographical inconvenience of Bagaijor, availability of land at Pretandih, and the unanimous Gram Sabha resolution in favour of PACS Pretandih, and submits that the impugned notification suffers from non-application of mind. 5. Learned State counsel submits that reorganization of PACS and 4 determination of their jurisdiction is a policy matter within the exclusive competence of the State Government. No vested right or enforceable legitimate expectation arises from an earlier notification, as the Government is empowered to modify or rescind such decisions in public interest. It is contended that the impugned notifications were issued after due administrative consideration. The State asserts that the action is a valid exercise of statutory discretion and the petition deserves dismissal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit. The reorganization and territorial jurisdiction of Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies fall squarely within the domain of policy and administrative discretion of the State Government. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any statutory violation, mala fides, or patent arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mere issuance of an earlier notification does not confer any vested or indefeasible right upon the petitioner or other villagers, nor does it create an enforceable legitimate expectation, as the State is competent to review, modify, or rescind such decisions in public interest. The impugned notification dated 15.10.2025 cannot be said to be illegal or unconstitutional merely because the objections 5 or recommendations relied upon by the petitioner were not accepted or the petitioner is having difficulty to reach the new center. In absence of clear illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, this Court declines to interfere in the policy decision of the State. 8. It is well settled proposition of law that the power of judicial review is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the court step into the areas exclusively reserved by the constitution to the other organs of the state and the court shall not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the state. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Keshari and Anr. Reported in (2011) 5 SCC held thus at para 29:- 29.The court in Johri Mal case also held that the decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition would not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. According to this Court the limited scope of judicial review is: (i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in an appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies; (ii) A petition for a judicial review would lie only on certain well- defined grounds; (iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself was perverse or illegal; 6 (iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review; (v) The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a court is limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasion miscarriage of justice; and (vi) The Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. 10. Applying the well settled principles to the facts of the present case at hand and for the reasons stated herein above, we do not find any good ground to interfere, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti