IGH CGURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATT!SGARH: BELASPU D!VIS!ON BENCH CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ & HON’BLE SHRI SATESH K. AGNiHGTRl, J. WP. (mum. 53130 of 2on6 Bhimsen S/o. Gobind Ram Dewangan, aged about 25 years, Occupation — Agricuiture, Rio Kosta para, Raigarh, Tahsil and District, Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPGNDENTS 1. Union 9f India through Ministry of Textile, New Delhi Deputy Direntcr, Centrai Tasar Silkworm Seed Siation, Lakha, PD. Raigarh (C.G;) PETmONER 3. Joint Director, Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organization, Satyam Compiex, Link Road, Biiaspur (CG) C.E.O, 8: Member Secretary, Central Silk Board, CSB Complex, BTM Layout, P.O. Madivaia, Bangalore (Karnat‘aka) Present : Smt. Hameeda $iddique, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, learned Standing counsel for Union of inclialresponclents.’ ORAL ORDER {Passed WW. on 5 Octoaer, 2006) The foliowing oral order of the Court was passed by SR. NAYAK, CJ . The action of the 4’“ respondent herein proposing to shift Centrai Tasar Silkworm Seed Station (CTSSS) Lakha unit district Raigarh to Kargi Road~ Kota, Biiaspur by complaining that if the shifting is aiiowed, it wouid vioiate the environmentai laws, speciaily, the provisions of Articie 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the shifting wouid result in the local people tosing jobs. lt is needless to state that the impugned decision of the 4‘“ respondent is a policy decision after H R «Z/ taking in to account all the relevant facts and circunwtances of the case and public interest. It is we“ sewed ihat the policy dec§sion should not lightly be inten‘ered with by the Court under Articie 226 of the Constituiion of lndia unless in a given case it is demonsttably shown to be irrational and arbitrary and violates Articie 14 postuiates. There is nothing before us to conclude in that way. Be that as it may, in the course of argument, it was brought to our notice by iearned counsei for the petitioner that Shri Jagdish Mehar Ex—Chairman, MP. State Textiie Corporation has submitted a representation to the 4‘“ respondent dated 16-05-2006, a copy of which is marked as Annexure P/5 opposing the shitting, and that the 4‘“ respondent did not consider the same. it is not that before approaching this Court under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner himself had made any representation to the 4t“ respondent opposing the proposed shifting. In that View of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the 4th respondent, and if such representation is made within a, period of one month from today, the 4th respondent shail oonsidet the same and on such consideration, if he finds that there is substance in the complaint, then, to take appropriate corrective measures, in accordance with law. No costs. Sd!~ Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotr‘t r Judge ®