1. In this writ petition, the validity of G.O.Rt No. 281 (981 wrongly typed as 281), Panchayat Raj Rural Development and Relief (ESTT-1) Department, dated 25-7-1996 is assailed.

2. The petitioner is the sitting M.L.A from Proddutur Assembly Constituency. He submits that originally the office of the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj was functioning at Jammalamadugu from 1984 and that there are 13 mandals under the Divisional Office. Out of 13 mandals, 4 are situate within Jammalamadugu Constituent Assembly and the rest under Proddutur and Pulivendula Assembly Constituencies. It was found that the location of the office of the Divisional Engineer, Panchayat Raj was not convenience for the villagers in various mandals either from the point of transport facilities or distance and also in order to execute various developmental activities. Hence, it became necessary to shift the office from Jammalamadugu to Proddutur. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Rt No. 1372, dated 22-11-1991 shifting the Panchayat Raj Engineering Division from Jammalamadugu to Proddutur. After it was shifted, permanent building was constructed by spending Rs. 5 lakhs. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that at the instance of sitting M.L.A of Jammalamadugu Assembly Constituency who belongs to ruling party and who held the post of Minister, the Government issued the impugned G.O directing the shifting of office of Executive Engineer from Proddutur to Jammalamadugu. It is the case of the petitioner that the ground of operation and convenience are absolutely incorrect. On the other hand, it will cause serious inconvenience to the public. More over, there is no pucca building at Jammalamadugu and it is functioning from a portion of the building allotted to in D.R.D.A building. It is stated that the impugned order is passed for extraneous political consideration viz., the petitioner (M.L.A of Proddutur Constituency) and other M.L.A of Pulivendula belongs to Congress Party.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the headquarters of one of the Division of Panchayat Raj Department was fixed at Jammalamadugu in G.O.Ms No. 331, dated 2-7-1985, the Cuddapah district was divided into three divisions, one such division was Jammalamadugu. The decision of the Government to shift the Panchayat Division, Executive Engineer from Proddutur to Jammalamadugu is purely an administrative act and it is neither illegal nor irrational and this Court may not interfere by exercising the judicial review on administrative act under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the division started functioning from 3-8-1986 at Jammalamadugu. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D. Sudarsana Reddy submits that while there should not be any objection for any citizen for shifting of office from one place to another place, but at the same time, the decision should not be arbitrary and tainted by extraneous considerations. It is the principal grievance that at the instance of sitting M.L.A of Jammalamadugu, the impugned orders were passed and no other considerations such as administrative convenience etc. have been taken into account while issuing the impugned orders.

5. The learned Govt. Pleader maintains that the shifting of a office from one place to another place is purely an administrative decision and it is outside the purview of the scrutiny by this Court. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in J.R Raghupathy v. State of A.P, AIR 1988 SC 1681.

6. It is not in dispute that earlier the headquarters of the division was located at Jammalamadugu and subsequently it was shifted to Proddutur in the year 1991. But, again in 1996 it is again shifted to its original place at Jammalamadugu by virtue of the impugned orders. It was not stated by the Government, under what circumstances the office was shifted from Jammalamadugu to Proddutur.

7. But, the question that arises for consideration is whether the 1st respondent has taken a decision basing on any material available on record?

8. It is now fairly well settled that the administrative actions of the Government are susceptible for judicial review by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, when such act suffers from illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents relate to the fixation of location of mandal headquarters in pursuance of final notification issued by the Government under sub-sec. 5 of S. 3 of A.P District (Formation) Act (7 of 1974). The location of mandal headquarters fixed at a particular place was sought to be challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the Government committed in breach of guidelines issued by the Government itself. Para 30 of the judgment is relevant for the purpose of this case, which is extracted below:

“We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfere with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-sec. (5) of S. 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the Gram Panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place ‘X’ rather than place ‘Y’ as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners.”

Thus, it is seen that the location of mandal headquarters was required to be fixed under the statutory provisions. On a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee, the proposals submitted by the Collector concerned, the objections and suggestions were received from the local-bodies like Gram Panchayat and general public. Therefore, it was held that it is not for the High Court to interfere with the fixation of the location of the mandal headquarters. The Supreme Court further held that even if the notification issued by the Government was not in confirmity with the guidelines issued in that record, still the High Court ought not to have interfered with the notification issued under the provisions of the Act as the guidelines have no statutory force and the writ in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce such a non-statutory right.

9. The instant case stands on a different footing. It is a simple case of the petitioner, who is none-else-than the sitting M.L.A of Assembly Constituency of Proddutur that the decision was taken purely on political considerations and no material was available before the Government to take such a decision. It is one thing to state that the Government has acted on the material available and in such a case, any decision taken by the Government even on insufficient material, it would not be permissible for this Court to exercise judicial review as sufficiency or otherwise of the material before the Government cannot be gone into by this Court. But, if there was no material whatsoever available and yet the decision was taken, it would be well within the powers of this Court to interfere in such matters. For this purpose, the Government was directed to produce necessary file to ascertain whether any such material was available before the Government for taking decision to shift the headquarters of a office from Proddutur to Jammalamadugu. From the file, I find that a note was sent by Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister on 19-6-1996 to the effect that on the representation received from the people of Jammalamadugu and also the M.L.A of Jammalamadugu, the Chief Minister has agreed for shifting of the office from Proddutur to Jammalamadugu and the action was directed to be taken to shift the office immediately. It was also directed that the orders of the Chief Minister may be obtained by circulating the concerned file within a week. Thereafter, I could only see the communication of Engineer-in-Chief dated 1-7-1996 wherein he stated as follows:

“Sub:— ESTT — PRED — Shifting of P.R Division from Proddutur to Jammalamadugu in Cuddapah district — Orders — Request — Regarding.

I wish to inform that due to convenience in the operation of Engineering Division, it is proposed to shift (PR) Engineering Division to Jammalamadugu from Proddutur.

I request and communicate orders shifting to Headquarters of P.R Division from Proddutur to Jammalamadugu at an early date.”

The only a relevant document which is available subsequent to the letter of Engineer-in-Chief is G.O.Rt No. 981, dated 25-7-1996 which is impugned in this writ petition. From the letter of the Engineer-in-Chief, no details are forthcoming as to what are the inconvenience which are caused in operating the Engineering Division which prompted recommending shifting from Proddutur to Jammalamadugu. It was also not on the record that under what circumstances, the headquarters was shifted from Jammalamadugu to Proddutur in 1991. It is needless to mention that when a decision is required to be taken by the Government, in the interest of administration or the general public, it is necessary that some data is required to be identified. Neither any report of the Collector nor the concerned local authorities was available with the Government. The letter of the Engineer-in-Chief is so criptic that nothing could be elicited or understood. It has to be only construed that the proposal was tuned to fall in line with the note of the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister. The representation of Sri Rama Subba Reddy, which was received in the Chief Minister's office on 2-7-1996 state that the headquarters of the Division was shifted from Jammalamadugu to Proddutur on political reasons at the relevant time, but again in this present writ petition, the sitting M.L.A of Proddutur comes out with a clear averment that shifting of the headquarters back to Jammalamadugu is equally over political considerations as the M.L.A of Jammalamadugu belongs to ruling party. Be that as it may, dehors the political considerations, the Government is required to consider the matter on the basis of some material. The representations of the political parties cannot be the sole ground to shift the office, but at the same time the decision has to be taken keeping in view the various considerations including public interest. The file is bereft of any such material whatsoever. Though, I am in agreement with the learned Govt. Pleader that the decision to shift the office from one place to another place is purely an administrative act, but at the same time, when the writ petitioner urged that the shifting was effected mala fide and purely on political considerations, it became necessary to scrutinise the decision. When done so, I find that the decision was taken without any material and thus falls foul of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the impugned notification. Accordingly, the notification is quashed. Since the headquarters have already been shifted from Proddutur to Jammalamadugu on 3-8-1996 and the office started functioning thereat, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the issue afresh by taking into relevant considerations. This exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The continunance of the office at Jammalamadugu shall be subject to the result of the decision that may be taken by the Government, in pursuance of the above directions.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is ordered. No costs.

Order accordingly.