Civil Writ Petition No. 4475 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4475 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.10.2009 Sonu Verma ...petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner had filed this writ petition seeking directions for grant of advance/loan to him for celebrating his own marriage. He had infact approached the Government for advance/loan and his request was rejected on the ground that the advance/loan can be granted for celebrating the marriages of sons/daughters or legally adopted children and dependent sisters, as per the policy instructions dated 6.5.2005 (Annexure P-4). The prayer of the petitioner was accordingly declined for which the petitioner had filed this writ petition before this Court. The petitioner has prayed for directions to modify these instructions to make a provision for grant of advance/loan to the employees for their self marriages. This prayer of-course is opposed by the State. The State counsel was requested to have instructions in this regard but still the response was that loan/advance for self marriage cannot be granted as it was not provided for him in the instructions. Civil Writ Petition No. 4475 of 2009 2 No doubt it is for the Government to formulate policies and instructions to regulate the policies especially such like policies made for the grant of advance/loan for the purpose of marriages. In a welfare state, such instructions are to help the employees may be to discharge their social obligations. Power under Article 226 can be exercised for enforcement of a fundamental right as well as non fundamental or ordinary legal rights. Words 'For any other purpose' in Article 226 make the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writ very wide but the concluding words of Article 226 clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must establish that he has right and the same is illegally, invaded and threatened. (See State of Orissa versus Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685). It would also not be available to enforce administrative rules, regulations or instruction which have no statutory force in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Writ jurisdiction can also not be exercised to interfere with the matter of policy unless it is demonstrably arbitrary, capricious, irrational, discriminatory or violative of constitutional or statutory provisions. In this regard, see Krishnan Kakkanth versus Government of Kerala AIR 1997 SC 128. Courts can not enter upon an exercise for finding out wisdom in the policy decision. It is immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise. Except for limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality the Courts are to avoid embarking upon uncharted ocean of public policy. Now recently in case of Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam versus Union of India (2009) 7 SCC 561, it is observed that in the matter of policy decision, the scope of judicial Civil Writ Petition No. 4475 of 2009 3 review is very limited. Unless the decision is shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or constitution, the Courts would not interfere with the decision. Even relative merits cannot be examined to say that another policy would have been fairer and better. Loan/advance for marriage is help given to an employee. It is based on policy formulated. Of course recovery is with interest. It would sound strange to notice that an employee can get advance/loan for performing the marriage of his dependents like sons/daughters/ sisters but such facility would not be available to him when he is to perform his own marriage. There is no rationale in formulating these instructions in this manner. It appears to be a case of an amiss in framing the instructions by not providing loan/advance for self marriage. The consideration for advance in such like cases rather may be more pronounced and appropriate. Obviously, in case an employee seeks advance/loan for his self marriage, it would be at a younger age and thus easily recoverable. That may not be so when he seeks advance for his dependent's marriage which would obviously be when he is much older. This exclusion of loan for self marriage is apparently not on the basis of any well considered conscious decision. It may be a case of the issue having escaped attention while formulating the policy instructions. There seems to be no purpose for denying loan for self marriage, when it is available to the same person for marriage of his dependents. Loan is for an employee. It would be available to him when he is to marry his dependent but not when need is his own. In both cases, he is to return the loan. There would hardly be any justification for not advancing loan to a person for his own marriage but allowing it to him Civil Writ Petition No. 4475 of 2009 4 when he needs it for some one else. The dominant purpose is to advance loan to a person for his help. If that be so, then there would hardly be any justification for denying loan for self marriage. I am conscious of the fact that it is a policy formulated by the State and it is with the domain of the State Government to frame the policy as per its wisdom. I am also conscious of the fact that to seek an advance or loan for the purpose of marriage may not be a right. It is a concession, help or assistance which the State as a welfare measure is providing. Attempt is not to find if the policy is unwise but to refer it to the framer to consider if this is a case of inadvertent slip. The instructions are silent in this regard and have not clearly excluded loan for self marriage. The Government thus may reconsider the issue afresh and decide if it would wish to have instructions to exclude loan for self marriage. The Government may also wish to consider if there is any need to clarify this aspect in the instructions. The Government also may consider if it would like to introduce any change in the policy. The present writ petition is disposed of in the light of above observations. October 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE