1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 6761 OF 2008 1. Shaikh Nayeem Shaikh Lal, age 40 years, occ. business, R/o. Paltan Hingoli, taluka and district Hingoli. 2. Dnyaneshwar s/o. Venkat Nalbalwar, age 60 years, occ. business, R/o. Indraprashtha Nagar, Nanded. - Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Mumbai through its Director. - - Respondents Shri S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri R. J. Nirmal, Advocate holding for Shri Tope Sambhaji, Advocate for respondent No.3. 2 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 22nd September 2009 ORAL ORDER : [ B. R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the Government Resolution dated 24-6-2008 vide which the State Government has changed the policy of acquiring various material for the purposes of various hostels run by it under the Social Welfare Department. 2. Shri Barlinge, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the earlier policy under which the petitioners were continuing to supply the material to the hostel run by the State Government was working properly. He submits that under the said policy, the quality items were supplied at the reasonable rates. He submits that due to the impugned policy, the Government is required to pay much more than what is available in the open market, and as such, huge money belonging to public exchequer is being wasted. 3 3. Shri Kadam, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader submits that the impugned Government Resolution is on the basis of a policy decision taken by the State Government and the said policy is equally applicable to other departments and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 4. The scope of interference while examining policy decision by the State is very limited. Unless the policy is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or unless it is found that while taking the decision and adopting a particular policy, the State Government has either taken into consideration irrelevant material or failed to take into consideration the relevant material, it would not be permissible for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government. It is also equally settled that while examining the decision of the State Government, the Court is not concerned with the ultimate decision but the decision making process adopted by the State Government. Unless it is found that the decision making process is vitiated on any of the grounds enumerated herein above, it would not be permissible for this Court to interfere with the policy decision by the State Government. A reference in this respect could be made to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata 4 Cellular vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 S.C.C. 651 and on various subsequent and earlier judgments. 5. To test the correctness of the contentions raised by the petitioner, we had called for original file pertaining to the decision making by the State Government. We have examined the original file. On examination of the file, we find that a proposal for change the policy was mooted by the DIrector of Social Welfare, Government of Maharashtra, Pune. While taking the decision, it has been found that due to earlier policy, various complaints were received to the effect that the goods are not received in time. Goods received are of inferior quality. It was also noticed that on account of non availability of funds, goods are not procured within time. The State Government while issuing Government Resolution impugned has also found that the other departments of Government namely; the Tribal Welfare Department, Public Health Department and Women and Child Development Department, have taken a decision to procure the goods by adopting a centralized purchase policy from the Maharashtra Marketing Federation, Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation, Maharashtra State Co-operative Consumer Federation. We do not find that the decision making process of the State Government is 5 vitiated by either arbitrariness or irrationality or impropriety. The only other ground on which the policy could have been interefered is mala fides. Neither are there any allegations regarding mala fides nor any person against whom mala fides are attributed has been made party to the petition. 6. In that view of the matter, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp676108