JUDGMENT
Thomas, Ag. C.J.
1. Government of Kerala have decided to name the District Hospital, Quilon as “A.A. Rahim Memorial District Hopspital” (vide Ext. P1 notification). Petitioner who describes himself as Vice President of the local District unit of Bharatiya Janata Party, Challenges Ext. P1. Earlier he submitted a petition to the Chief Secretary of Kerala requesting him to withdraw the notification, but he did not accede to the request. Petitioner has, therefore, filed this original petition for a writ of mandamus forbearing the Government from implementing Ext. P1. Learned single Judge before whom this original petition came up referred it to the Division Bench.
2. Shri K. Ramakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged for an immediate order of interim stay as aceremony is being arranged this evening for the formal christening of the District Hospital with the above name. Learned Advocate General opposed the prayer. Hence we heard arguments of both sides in detail.
3. Three reasons have been advanced in challenge of-Ext. P1. First is that Ext. P1 was aimed at garnering the votes of a particular community during the erstwhile elections to the local bodies and hence the notification is tainted by mala fides. Second is that Ext. P1 is bereft of any reason whatsoever. Being an administrative order, it should have been supported by reasons and hence Ext. PI is invalid. The third point of attack is that Government should have given preference to the names of some other departed leaders of Kerala who belonged to Quilon District if Government were desirous of naming the District Hospital after any political leader who belonged to Quilon. Petitioner mentioned names of Messers C. Kesavan, T.M. Varghese, R. Sankar, C.M. Stephen and T.K. Divakaran and suggested that the same of any one of them would have been more befitting to christen the District Hospital.
4. Learned Advocate General pointed out that Ext. P1 notification was published only after polling in the election (for the local bodies) was over. This factual position is not disputed. If so the wind has been taken out of sail so far as the first contention is concerned. Even otherwise, the contention that Ext. PI notification is intended to garner the votes of the community to which Sri A.A. Rahim belonged is too tenuous to be countenanced, for, such a contention could be advanced if the name of any other person was used because that other person also would have belonged to a particular community.
5. In support of the second contention learned counsel invited our attention to the decisions in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984: (1990 Cri LJ2148) and M. J. Sivaniv. State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 1770. In the former decision a Constitution Bench of the Surpeme Court has observed thus:
“In view of the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities …… With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement”.
6. It is not in all administrative orders that Government are obliged to show reasons. Where the Government order is one affecting the right of any other person, or when they exercise appellate or revisional powers there is the need to show reasons. There are very many executive orders which may be routine or emergent or of general application which do not require to he supported by stated reasons, eg, Government orders the celebration of an important event, or declaration of a public holiday as a mark of respect of a departed public leader etc. the impugned order would belong to that list of orders which need not be published with reasons which persuaded the Government to take the decision. An order like Ext. P1 would not ostensibly interfere with anybody’s right. It only perpetuates the name of an individual. At the most, it is only intended to make a cenotaph for some one was held in esteem by the public.
7. It is nothing but inept to evaluate the relative eminence as between the personalities named in the Original Petition including the person in whose memory the District Hospital, Kollam is being named now. There is no case for the petitioner that the other persons (whose names are mentioned in the petition) were ignored by the Government in setting up memorials at any time and at any place. Nor has the petitioner a case that Sri. Rahim was not an eminent personality whose name is not worthy for a cenotaph of public importance. On the other hand, petitioner himself admitted that Shri A.A. Rahim was a minister of the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin and he was a member of the Indian Parliament and was Lt. Governor of a Union Territory in India. A more important role which the departed soul has adorned was missed by the petitioner which learned Advocate General reminded us that Shri Rahim was a Central Minister for External Affairs, Learned Advocate General further pointed out the one feature which persuaded the Government in giving his name to the hospital that he held the portfolio of Health when he was minister in the Travancore-Cochin Government, and that it was during his tenure and at his behest that the present multi-storeyed edifice which houses the District Hospital at Quilon was designed and sanctioned. It was he himself who had laid the foundation stone for the said building. Petitioner who rushed to this Court could have made enquiries about these facts if he bona fide thought that the Government resolve in this matter was not bona fide.
8. However, Shri. Ramakumar contended Shri A. A. Rahim whose family was financially affluent could not have contributed any amount for the development of the District Hospital or any other project in the District or in the town concerned. It would not be fair to suggest that memorials can be set up only for those who would have shelled out money from their pockets for public purpose even if we assume that Sri A.A. Rahim’s financial position was very affluent. That apart, petitioner has not stated in the original petition that Sri A.A. Rahim did not make any financial contribution for any developmental work in his native place, though that is not an aspect for consideration now.
We have not come across any reason, much less any valid reason for even doubting that the decision of the Government was actuated by any mala fides. We, therefore, dismiss this original petition.