Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral) - By the medium of this writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought writ of certiorari quashing notification, dated 19th October, 2015, in terms of which Village Bhanjal has been excluded from the territory of Kanungo Circle, Amb, and included in the newly created Tehsil Ghanari, District Una, on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition.
2. The respondents have filed the reply and have stated that the factors like equal number of Patwar Circles, geographical contiguity and administrative feasibility etc. have been kept in view while making proposal for creation of new Tehsil Ghanari. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the reply filed by respondent No. 2 herein:
"9. In reply to this para it is submitted that a proposal was received from the Tehsildar, Amb through the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Amb vide his office letter No. 892/SDK dated 10.04.2015 regarding creation of new Tehsil Ghanari and same was forwarded to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter No. 1899/E.A. dated 07.07.2015. As per proposal of the Tehsildar, Amb the Gram Panchayat, Lower Bhanjal has been excluded from the Tehsil Amb and included in newly created Tehsil Ghanari. The distance of Ghanari from Bhanjal is 8 kms only from shortest route. It is further submitted that there are 58 patwar circles in Amb and same have been divided equally into two Tehsils namely Amb and Ghanari. While making a proposal for creation of new Tehsil Ghanari, factors like equal number of Patwar Circles, geographical contiguity and administrative feasibility etc. are kept in view. In the present proposal, the contiguity of Tehsil Ghanari with Development Block Gagret and Tehsil Amb with Development Block Amb has been maintained. It is submitted that the Gram Panchayat Bhanjal Lower, falls in Development Block Gagret and not in Development Block Amb. If it is allowed to be included in Tehsil Amb, it will create an administrative overlapping of Development Block Gagret not Tehsil Amb. Further, it is submitted that the proposal from the Tehsilar Amb was forwarded by the replying respondent to the Government, who has taken a final view after considering all aspects."
3. It is a moot question � whether the writ will lie? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons:
4. The State Government has made a conscious decision and the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the same.
5. It is beaten law of land that the Writ Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the executive functions unless case for judicial review is carved out.
6. The Apex Court in Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India and others, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 1399, has laid down the guidelines and held that Courts should not interfere in policy decision of the Government, unless there is arbitrariness on the face of it.
7. The Apex Court in a latest decision reported in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India and another, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 616, also held that interference by the Court on the ground of efficacy of the policy is not permissible. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of the said decision as under:
"14. On matters affecting policy, this Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. The impugned policy that allows FDI up to 51% in multi�brand retail trading does not appear to suffer from any of these vices."
8. The Apex Court in the case titled as Mrs. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration and others, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5636, has held that policy decision cannot be quashed on the ground that another decision would have been more fair, wise, scientific or logical and in the interest of society. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the aforesaid judgment herein:
"10. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logic. The principle of reasonableness and non arbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Reference in this regard can also be made to Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal [(2000) 8 SCC 262 : (AIR 2000 SC 3313)]."
9. It appears that the respondents have examined all aspects and made the decision. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision making process is bad. The Court can not sit in appeal and examine correctness of policy decision.
10. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhubaneswar Development Authority and another v. Adikanda Biswal and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 731 has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the judgment herein:
"19. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the statutory authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The Court confines itself to the question of legality and is concerned only with, whether the decision making authority exceeded its power, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers."
11. This Court in CWP No. 621 of 2014, titled as Nand Lal & another v. State of H.P. & others; CWP No. 7115 of 2013, titled as Sher Singh v. State of H. P. & others; and CWP No. 4625 of 2012, titled as Gurbachan v. State of H.P. & others, has also laid down the same proposition of law.
12. Applying the test to the instant case, the petitioner has not questioned the decision-making process but has questioned the decision arrived at by the authorities.
13. It was for the petitioner to show how the decision taken by the authorities was biased. Neither any such person has been arrayed as party-respondent, against whom biasness has to be pleaded, nor any such ground has been urged in the writ petition.
14. Having said so, this petition merits dismissal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed along with all pending applications.
