Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. & ... on 31 August, 2020
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- P.I.L. CIVIL No. - 14166 of 2020 Petitioner :- Abhishek Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G. Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Rama Kant Dixit and Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsels for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation has been filed for following reliefs :-
?Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent number one to exercise the power vested with it under Section 8 of Cr.P.C. to create Commissionerate in all other cities the population of which is more than one million.
2. The petitioner also seeks the writ of mandamus directing the Respondent State to constitute the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as provided in Sections 16 and 17 of the Cr.P.C.
3. The petitioner also prayed that Inspector General ranked officers may be directed to be appointed as Commissioner of Police in place of ADG ranked officers as has been done by the Government.?
3. The petitioner himself claims to be a social cum political cum legal activist. According to the petitioner, Section 8 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for creation of Commissionerate in the metropolitan area and, there are sixteen cities in the State of Uttar Pradesh, i.e. Lucknow, Guatam Budh Nagar, Kanpur, Ghaziabad, Meerut, Agra, Prayagraj, Varanasi, Gorakhpur, Ayodhya, Jhansi, Sahranpur, Bareilly, Moradabad and Mathura, which are inhabitants of more than one million people and Municipal Corporations of these cities are called Nagar Nigam. The State Government vide notification dated 13.01.2020 has created commissionerate system for two metropolitan areas i.e. Lucknow and Gautam Budh Nagar, whereas as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State Government is bound to notify the commissionerate system in all the 16 metropolitan cities and, therefore, the State Government has acted in an arbitrary manner to pick up only two metropolitan cities having commissionerate system. He further submits that the petitioner has made a representation to the State Government in this respect, but no action has been taken for creation of commissionerate system in other 14 metropolitan cities of the State.
4. Section 2 (k) of the Code defines metropolitan area. "Metropolitan area" means the area declared, or deemed to be declared, under Section 8, to be a metropolitan area. Thus, for the purposes of criminal justice under the Code of Criminal Procedure, an area becomes metropolitan area only when it is declared by the State Government as provided under Section 8 of the Code. Section 8 of the Code reads as under:-
"8. Metropolitan areas.--(1) The State Government may, by notification, declare that, as from such date as may be specified in the notification, any area in the State comprising a city or town whose population exceeds one million shall be a metropolitan area for the purposes of this Code.
(2) As from the commencement of this Code, each of the Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the city of Ahmedabad shall be deemed to be declared under sub- section (1) to be a metropolitan area.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, extend, reduce or alter the limits of a metropolitan area but the reduction or alteration shall not be so made as to reduce the population of such area to less than one million.
(4) Where, after an area has been declared, or deemed to have been declared to be, a metropolitan area, the population of such area falls below one million, such area shall, on and from such date as the State Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, cease to be a metropolitan area; but notwithstanding such cesser, any inquiry, trial or appeal pending immediately before such cesser before any Court or Magistrate in such area shall continue to be dealt with under this Code, as if such cesser had not taken place.
(5) Where the State Government reduces or alters, under sub- section (3), the limits of any metropolitan area, such reduction or alteration shall not affect any inquiry, trial or appeal pending immediately before such reduction or alteration before any Court or Magistrate, and every such inquiry, trial or appeal shall continue to be dealt with under this Code as if such reduction or alteration had not taken place.
Explanation.- In this section, the expression" population" means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published."
5. Bare reading of Section 8 of the Code makes it abundantly clear that it is the discretion of the State Government to declare any area in the State comprising a city or town whose population exceeds one million as metropolitan area for the purposes of this Code. The Section does not mandate the State Government to declare every city or town whose population exceeds one million to be a metropolitan area. The State Government has to take into consideration several factors and it is a policy decision for declaring any area to be a metropolitan area.
6. After an area is declared as metropolitan area, the State Government is required to establish the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates under Section 16 of the Code. If the State Government does not declare an area, city, town as metropolitan area, there is no question of establishing the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates under Section 16 of the Code and, therefore, the question does not arise for appointment of Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for such metropolitan area by the High Court.
7. The State Government at present by exercising the discretion vested under Section 8 of the Code, has declared two cities i.e. Lucknow and Guatam Budh Nagar to be metropolitan cities w.e.f. 13.01.2020. Since only two cities have been declared to be metropolitan cities, it does not mean that each and every city, which has population of more than one million, has to be necessarily declared as metropolitan city under Section 8 of the Code. The State Government may declare one city or more than one city whose population is more than one million to be metropolitan city, but the provision of Section 8 does not mandate the State Government to declare each and every city whose population is more than one million, to be a metropolitan city for the purposes of this Code.
8. Lucknow being the capital of the State having more than one million population and Guatam Budh Nagar being another city of importance having more than one million population, have been declared to be metropolitan cities for the purposes of this Code w.e.f. 13.01.2020. Declaration of these two cities i.e. Lucknow and Guatam Budh Nagar to be metropolitan cities, cannot be said to be discriminatory or in violation of any provision of the Code or any other law.
9. The petitioner has filed this petition without even comprehending the relevant provisions of the Code. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to point out from the language employed in Section 8 of the Code and how it can be said that it is mandatory for the State Government to declare each and every city or town which has population of more than one million to be metropolitan city, he did not have any answer. When the language employed in the provision is explicit and its plain reading makes it abundantly clear that it is the discretion of the State Government to declare or not to declare a city, town or area to be metropolitan area for the purposes of this Code, this Court in absence of any cogent and credible material, cannot assume that the State Government has acted arbitrarily in declaring only two cities i.e. Lucknow and Guatam Budh Nagar to be metropolitan cities and leaving other cities which have population of more than one million from the notification.
10. The petitioner being Advocate and an Officer of the Court, duty lies on him to see that the Court?s precious time is not wasted by filing frivolous and publicity stunt petitions in this Court in the garb of Public Interest Litigation. We do not approve the approach of the petitioner for filing this petition without even going through the relevant provisions.
11. We find no merit and substance in this petition, which has been filed for obvious purpose of the publicity and, therefore, dismiss this petition. However, without any cost considering the fact that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court.
Order Date :- 31.8.2020 Rao/-