LexEKTA SHAKTI FOUNDATION versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
EKT A SHAKTI FOUNDATION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI JULY 17, 2006 [ARIJIT PASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.] Administrative Law-Administrative action-Scope of judicial review-- Delhi Government framed scheme for supply of supplementary nutrition under A B the Integrated Child Development Service (!CDS) programme through C 'Anganwadi Centres' by involving Non-Profit Organisations-Scheme envisaged that registered non-profit organizations with at least 3 years experience were eligible to apply-Writ petitions filed challenging rationale of the eligibility criteria-Held: Constitution does not permit the Court to interfere in any administrative action, provided authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers-Courts cannot interfere even D if second view is possible-On facts, no irrationality found in the eligibility criteria fixed to justify interference by Court-Constitution of India, 1950- Article 32. Administrative Law-Administrative action-Article 14 cannot be applied to legitimize an illegitimate action-A party cannot claim that since E something wrong has been done in another case, direction should be given for doing another wrong-Concept of equal treatment does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on par-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14. The Delhi Government framed a detailed scheme for supply of F supplementary nutrition under the Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) programme through 'Anganwadi Centres' by involving Non-Profit Organisations. Offers were invited for implementation of the said scheme. It was stipulated that registered Non-Profit Organisations with at least 3 years experience were eligible to apply. The present writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution question the rationale of the said stipulation/eligibility criteria. Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court 631 G H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to sermonize any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these B authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision c D E taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court it cannot interfere. 1637-C-DI 1.2. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision making, taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. (637-E] 1.3. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government 1637-F,G] Ashif Hamid v. State of J & K, AIR (1989) SC 1899 and Shri Sitaram F Sugar Co. v. Union of India, AIR (1990) SC 1277, relied on. State of Orissa and Ors. v. Gopinath Dash and Ors., 12005] 13 SCC 495 and People's Union for Civil liberties v. Union of India and Ors., (20041 12 sec 104, referred to. G Metropolis Theatre Company v. City of Chicago, (1912) 57 L Ed 730, referred to. 2. So far as the allotment to non-eligible societies is concerned even if it is accepted, though specifically denied by the Authority to be true, that does not confer any right on the appellants. Two wrongs do not make one right. A H party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case, ... EKT A SHAKTI FOUNDATION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 633 direction should be given for doing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.