STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus GOPINATH DASH AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 09-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST ATE OF ORI SSA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
GOPINA TH DASH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 9, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND TA RUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Administrative Law: 
Policy decision taken by State-Judicial review-Scope of-Held: Court 
not to interfere with or sit as an appellate authority over the administrative C 
action of State. 
The question which has arisen for consideration in the present appeal 
is whether High Court was justified in holding that the policy decision taken 
by the State in the matter of allotment of quarters to the Armed Police 
Personnel by rotation basis was illegal. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. While exercising the power of judicial review of 
administrative action, the Court is not appellate authority and the Constitution 
does not permit the Court to direct or advise the Executive in matter of policy E 
or to sermoni7.e any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere 
of the Legislature or the Executive, provided these authorities do not 
transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. The scope of judicial 
enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the 
Government is against any statutory provisions or it violates the fundamental 
rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, F 
the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not 
appear to be agreeable to the Court it cannot interfere. (701-G-H; 702-A-B] 
Ashif Hamid v. State of J and K, AIR (1989) SC 1899 and Shri Sitaram 
Sugar Co .. v. Union of India, AIR (1990) SC 1277, relied on. 
1.2. 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 
G 
699 
H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
(702-D-E) 
Metropolis Theatre Company v. City of Chicago, (1912) 57 L Ed 730, 
B referred to. 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2272of1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.96 of the Orissa High Court in 
O.J.C. No. 3193 of 1992. 
Jana Kalyan Das for the Appellants. 
Aruneshwar Gupta (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered 
by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court holding that the policy decision 
taken by the State in the matter of allotment of quarters by rotation basis was 
illegal. 
E 
Adumbrated in brief the factual background as projected by the 
appellants is as follows:-
An executive order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of 
Police vide his D.O. letter No.4322/SAP in furtherance of a policy decision 
that quarters were to be allotted to all the Orissa State Armed Police Personnel 
F 
for a minimum period of three years. This order was passed keeping in view 
the dearth of family accommodation which at the relevant point of time was 
an acute problem for the Orissa State Armed Policy Battalion. It was also done 
with a view to ensure that every police personnel enjoyed the facility ofrent-
free accommodation and that is why it was done on rotational basis. The 
G practice had continued uninterruptedly for a long time. Military police 
establishments normally function in a separate camp where provisions are 
made for all the personnel to be given residential accommodation. Therefore, 
the system was developed to ensure that the employees are provided with 
quarters for a given period and after completion of that period they are 
required to vacate the quarters. This would enable other employees who are 
H deprived of quarters can get quarters so vacated. Contractual agreements 
STATE OF ORIS SA v. GOPINATH DASH [PASA Y AT, J.] 
701 
were entered into between the employer and the employees when they were A 
given government accommodation. Questioning legality of the orders the 
respondents along with one Kirtan Behari Swain who has expired in the mean 
time filed an Original Application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.