State Of Uttarakhand And Others vs Pradeep Kumar Chauhan And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is preferred against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3909 of 2018 dated

19.03.2019.

The respondent-writ petitioners, who are all Advocates practicing in this High Court, had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of

mandamus directing the respondents to complete construction of new Advocates chambers, pursuant to the process already initiated in this regard, in a

time bound manner; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute a competent committee to review allotment of existing chambers,

particularly to find out the vacancy which had occurred in view of Rule 13 of the Chambers Rules, 2008; and a writ of mandamus directing the

respondents to allot chambers to the practicing Advocates of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.

In the interlocutory order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that inaction on the part of the State and its agencies, in particular

respondents 2, 3 and 4, despite the various communications made by the Registrar General of this Court, the declaration of the Chief Minister

sanctioning amounts for construction of the Advocates’ chambers, the land being identified and allotted by the Registrar General of the High Court

which was made available for construction of the Advocates’ chambers, and, despite consistent pursuant action, the matter was still pending on

account of which Advocates, who are practicing in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, are forced to work under pathetic and difficult climatic

conditions. Considering the background of the communications addressed by the Registrar General, the learned Single Judge issued an interim

mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4 to take an immediate decision on the project, and submit a final affidavit to this Court on 01.04.2019, failing

which respondents 2 to 4 would appear in person on the next date fixed for hearing. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the State of

Uttarakhand and its officers.

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants-State of Uttarakhand, would submit that sanction of a Detailed Project

Report (for short “DPRâ€) is linked to release of funds. It is only if budgetary sanction is accorded for construction of the Advocates’

chambers, would the question of approval of the DPR arise; and as funds can only be sanctioned by the State Legislature, and not the Executive, a

mandamus to the Executive is wholly unjustified.

When we asked Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, to show us the law which obligates the State Government to finalize the DPR

only if adequate funds are sanctioned by the Legislature, learned Chief Standing Counsel would fairly submit that, while there may not be any law on

this aspect, it has been the practice, for the past several years, to accord approval of the DPR only if funds are sanctioned by the Legislature.

It is not in dispute that a DPR is a pre-requisite for commencement of construction, and it is only if the detailed project report is approved by the

State Government, would the question of commencement of construction arise thereafter. While funds are, undoubtedly, required to be provided for

construction, in the absence of any law which obligates the State Government to approve the DPR only on adequate funds being sanctioned by the

Legislature, we may not be justified in holding that the learned Single Judge had erred in directing the appellants herein to take an immediate decision

on the proposal submitted by the High Court which are, admittedly, pending with the State Government for the past more than two years.

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, would submit that the proposals, submitted by the High Court, are required to be examined in

the light of several parameters; and the State Government undertakes to finalize the DPR within three months from today.

On the other hand Mr. B.P. Nautiyal and Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the State Government is not justified in

seeking further time of three months, when the matter is pending with the State Government for the past two years; a DPR has already been prepared

by the Public Works Department; and a part of the sum of Rs. 50 lacs, sanctioned earlier, has already been spent in this regard.

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to modify the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge to the limited extent that the

State Government shall take an immediate decision, in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, within two months from today.

With the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal is disposed of. No costs.