Asha Matsya Vikas Khedut Mangalam ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 10399 Guj

      C/SCA/782/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 782 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

and

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
             ASHA MATSYA VIKAS KHEDUT MANGALAM MANDAL
                                Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER(2104) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
.... for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
          and
          HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                              Date : 03/08/2021

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI)

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

1. The writ-applicant has filed present writ-application seeking the following reliefs :-

"(A) Holding that the impugned order Annexure-A1 dated 2912- 2018 passed by respondent no.2 and the impugned order Annexure-A2 dated 6-11-2019 passed by Respondent No.4 are absolutely arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and illegal and consequently quash and set aside the same and further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant necessary permit to the petitioner for carrying out fishing operations from the Pratapsagar Reservoir, Taluka Himatnagar, District Sabarkantha Bhaskarpara Reservoir as per the terms of the contract and further direct the respondents to compensate the loss of time suffered by the petitioner.

(B) Pending admission and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble court be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the members of petitioner association to carry on fishing operation in accordance with the contract. (C) Any other relief deemed fit to meet the ends of justice may be granted."

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal can be summarized as under :-

2.1 The writ-applicant is a registered association of fishermen earning their livelihood by fishing. The Government of Gujarat enacted the Gujarat Fisheries Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') to

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

provide for protection, conservation and development of fisheries in inland and territorial waters and for the purpose of regulating fishing operations etc.

2.2 The State of Gujarat has framed a lease policy for fishing from fresh water reservoirs of the State vide GR No.FDX- 112003- 1618-T dated 25.2.2004 (for short 'the lease policy, 2004'). The said policy was evolved to facilitate the fishermen to undertake culture cum capture fisheries in a systematic and scientific manner. The policy is aimed to encourage and support the poor and tribal fishing communities. Pursuant to an advertisement in the local newspapers in June, 2017 issued by the State Government tenders for fishing lease in three water reservoirs viz. (1) Pratapsagar Jalashay, Raygadh, Himmatnagar (2) Limbla Talav, Limbla Prantij and (3) Karol Talav, Karol, Prantij. The writ-applicant submitted tender for Pratapsagar reservoir. The writ-applicant's tender came to be accepted and was awarded a contract for fishing by order dated 24.10.2017 for a period of five years with retrospective effect from 1.7.2017 to 10.6.2022.

2.3 One Shri Hiralal Punambhai Joshi filed a public interest litigation before this Court challenging the tender notice on the ground that religious sentiment of persons belonging to Brahmin communities would be hurt if the writ-applicant was permitted to carry out fishing activities at Pratapsagar lake. Pending the PIL the writ-applicant was awarded the contract

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

by order dated 24.10.2017. The contract was awarded to the writ-applicant subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition (PIL) No.143 of 2017. The office of the respondent No.2 by order dated 21.2.2018 suspended the contract awarded to the writ-applicant till the final outcome of the Writ Petition (PIL) No.143 of 2017 which was pending adjudication before this Court. The writ-applicant of Writ Petition (PIL) No.143 of 2017 submitted a communication to the District Collector, Himmatnagar on 30.3.2018 stating that he was withdrawing his objection against the fishing activities in Pratapsagar lake and was also withdrawing the Writ Petition (PIL) No.143 of 2017. The Writ Petition (PIL) No.143 of 2017 was accordingly withdrawn by the said writ-applicant on 18.4.2018.

2.4 The writ-applicant made various representations to the authorities stating that since the contract was awarded to the writapplicant subject to final outcome of the Writ Petition (PIL) No.143 of 2017, in wake of the PIL having been withdrawn the order suspending the contract was required to be revoked. Since the authorities did not consider the representations made by the writ-applicant, the writ-applicant approached this Court by way of the Special Civil Application No.13205 of 2018. This Court by order dated 4.12.2018 disposed of the writ application making certain observations in paragraphs 17 and 18 which are produced thus, :-

"17. Therefore present petition is disposed of with following

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

observation:

a. The authority is obliged to pass further order pursuant to and in connection with the order dated 21.2.2018.

b. If the authority wants to take any decision contrary to the order dated 24.10.2017 and/ or does not intend to restore said order dated 24.10.2017 then the authority shall follow proper procedure and shall also comply principles of natural justice and after issuing notice to the petitioner and after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

18. This process shall be completed within 10 days otherwise the authority should pass necessary and further order as may be required in light of the fact that the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 143 of 2017 is withdrawn and in light of previous order dated 24.10.2017.

With aforesaid direction and clarification the petition is disposed of. Notice discharged. Direct Service is permitted."

2.5 Pursuant to the order dated 4.12.2018 passed in the Special Civil Application No.13205 of 2018 the show cause notice came to be issued to the writ-applicant on 21.12.2018 asking the writ-applicant to remain personally present. The writ-applicant remained present before the competent authority and reiterated the written submissions submitted by the writ- applicant on 12.11.2018.

2.6 The writ-applicant received impugned order passed by the

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

respondent No.3 - Assistant Director, Fisheries dated 29.12.2018 rejecting his application. The operative paragraph of the said order dated 29.12.2018 reads thus :-

"OFFICE ORDER:-

The Pratapnagar lake situated at Moje: Raigadh in the Taluka: Himmatnagar of the district was granted to Shree Aasha Matsyavikas Khedut Mangalam Mandal, Post: Javangadh (Raigadh), Taluka: Himmatnagar, by the order referred at Sr. No.4 above as per the provision laid down in the resolution of the government, referred at Sr. No.1 above, on annual contract at Rs.19,459/- w.e.f. 01/07/2017 (with retrospective effect) till 10/06/2022, and the same was stayed vide Order referred at Sr.No.6 above. Upon request made for withdrawal of WPPIL No.143/2014 preferred before the Hon'ble High Court at Ahmedabad, the permission was granted to withdraw the petition vide Oral Order dated 18/04/2018 and therefore, the office order staying the contract referred at Sr. No.5 above stands cancelled. Thus, considering every aspects of the submission made by the contractor: Shree Aasha Matsyavikas Khedut Mangalam Mandal, Post: Javangadh (Raigadh), Taluka: Himmatnagar to keep the contract continue, against the objection of the local village people on religious ground regarding the contract of fishing in the Pratapnagar Lake, in order to maintain the religious sentiments, law and order in the village, considering the provisions laid down at point no.13(1) and point No.25(10) of the reservoir license policy of the government referred at Sr.No.1 above, the contrct granted

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

to the contractor by the order referred at Sr.No.4 above, is hereby cancelled with right to appeal. The license fee and the entire security amount deposited by the contractor: Shree Aasha Matsyavikas Khedut Mangalam Mandal, Post: Javangadh (Raigadh), Taluka: Himmatnagar to the government shall have to be refunded."

2.7 Being aggrieved by the impugned order No.MMNiHi/TTraK-1 Pratapsagar/2018-19/883 dated 29.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 - Assistant Director, Fisheries the writ-applicant filed an appeal. The Appeal bearing Sr.No.NAMNIA/ Sabarkantha/ Pratapsagar J.E./ 2019-20/1378 came to be rejected by order dated 6.11.2019 passed by the respondent No.4 - Dy. Director, Fisheries. The operative paragraphs of the order rejecting the appeal filed by the writ-

applicant are produced thus, :-

":: Office Order ::

A conditional order had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, Himmatnagar to give the contract of fisheries in Pratapsagar lake located at Raigadh, Taluka -

Himmatnagar to Shri Asha Matsya Vikas Khedut Manglam Mandal Jawangadh (Raigadh), Taluka - Himmatnagar vide the order referred at No.(2) following the provisions made under resolution referred at No.(1). The local people of the village and the Panchayat made representation to District Collector, Himmatnagar regarding their objection against it on the ground of religious belief. A report has been submitted

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

stating the possibility of impact on the maintenance of law and order situation as the lake has been given for fisheries by the District Collector, Himmatnagar being the administrative authority of the district. When the Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, Himmatnagar held a meeting with local villagers and Panchayat on 27/12/2018, strong objection has been raised against the allocation of the lake for the fisheries.

On hearing Shri Asha Matsya Vikas Khedut Manglam Mandal Jawangadh (Raigadh), Taluka - Himmatnagar, it appears that no terms and conditions of the allocated contract have been breached by it. It has been submitted that the cancelled contract should be continued for the livelihood of the members of the Mandal as their fundamental right.

Vide letter of Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, Himmatnagar dated 17/09/19, the contractor has not been given any permission for fishing by the office of Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, Himmatnagar after the contract order dated 24/10/2017. Since the district office has not allocated spawn to the contractor to lay the same in the said lake after serving the contract order and no permission has been granted to lay spawn privately, the contractor has not made any expenditure in this regard. Further, the contractor has deposited the amount of contract Rs. 19,459/- and amount of security Rs. 3892/- to the government. As the contract has been cancelled vide the order of the office dated 29/12/2018, the district office has decided to refund the said amounts to the contractor. In this manner, the contractor Shri

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

Asha Matsya Vikas Khedut Manglam Mandal Jawangadh (Raigadh), Taluka - Himmatnagar has not suffered any economic loss during the period between the allocation of the contract of Pratapsagar irrigation lake and the cancellation of the order of allocation of the said contract.

Thus, considering the representation made by the respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, Himmatnagar against the representation made by the plaintiff, Shri Asha Matsya Vikas Khedut Manglam Mandal Jawangadh (Raigadh), Taluka - Himmatnagar, it appears that since it is necessary and in the larger interest of public that the law and order situation and peace is maintained in the village, the order withdrawing and cancelling the contract allocated vide Order No. MMNiHi/TTraK - 1 Pratapsagar/2018-19/883 dated 29/12/2018 is upheld as per provisions of the contract policy dated 25/02/2004. An order is passed to reject the appeal submitted by plaintiff, Shri Asha Matsya Vikas Khedut Manglam Mandal Jawangadh (Raigadh), Taluka - Himmatnagar referred at No.7."

2.8 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 - Assistant Director, Fisheries and the order dated 6.11.2019 passed by the respondent No.4 - Dy. Director, Fisheries the writ-applicant approached this Court by way of present writ-application.

Submissions on behalf of the writ-applicant :-

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

3. Mr. Subramaniam Iyer, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant contended that the writ-applicant is an Association belonging to backward class community who earn their livelihood by fishing. The Act, 2003 has been enacted by the legislature for upliftment, progress and to support the poor and tribal fishing community. The fishing activities are going on every where in the world right from primitive ages. Fishing is a livelihood and main occupation for the fishermen community in various States of India and it is also source of revenue for Gujarat.

3.1 He submitted that the writ-applicant was given the contract of fishing for a period of five years with retrospective effect from 1.7.2017 to 10.6.2022. The Writ Petition (PIL) No.143 of 2017 also came to be withdrawn by the writ- applicant of the said PIL on the basis that the objections before the competent authority were also withdrawn and, therefore, the order suspending the contract dated 21.2.2018 would not survive. The authority was required to re-look and re-think into the above referred subject matter.

3.2 He placed reliance on Clauses (13), 13(1) and 14) of the lease policy, 2004. The clauses (13) and (14) are produced thus, :-

"13. To withdraw the contract (1) In public interest - i.e in case of law and order or if the recommendation is made to reserve water for drinking by the District Collectors or due to

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

health reasons, if it is stated by the Health Officer or Gujarat Pollution Board then contracts can be withdrawn by the department for such reservoirs or the term of the contract can be reduced. In such case, the contractor shall have to pay the amount of contract in proportion for the relevant period or as may be decided by the competent authority. In case of voluntarily withdrawal of contract, notice shall have to be issued to the contractor 1 (one) month in advance before 30th June. Such contractor will not be able to participate in the next contract for one year for this reservoir..."

"14 CANCELLATION OF LEASE:

In case the lease holder commits condition stipulated in lease deed or lease order or commits any or fraud with the department or carries out fishing illegally in an reservoir the competent authority may cancel the lease if deemed necessary and forfeit the security deposit and proceed with action for granting new lease afresh. In such cases, the defaulting society/union/organization shall be blacklisted. In such cases, the leaseholder may prefer appeal to the higher authority within 15 (fifteen) days and the decision of the appellate authority shall be final."

Relying on the above clauses he submitted that the contract awarded to the writ-applicant could be cancelled only if there is a breach of any condition or any financial

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

irregularity or fraud committed by the writ-applicant in carrying out the fishing activities in the reservoir. He submitted that the writ-applicant had not committed breach any of the condition of the contract nor was there any allegation of financial irregularity against the writ-applicant. He submitted that the contract given in favour of the writ- applicant could not have been cancelled by the authority on the ground of hurting religious sentiment of any community.

3.3 He also submitted that Clause 13(1) of the lease policy was not applicable to the writ-applicant since the said clause would apply only if there was damage caused to the environment by carrying on any of the activities. Admittedly there was no such allegation against the writ-applicant and, therefore, the said clause was not applicable to the writ- applicant.

3.4 Lastly it was submitted that the impugned order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 as well as order dated 6.11.2019 passed by the respondent No.4 were required to be quashed in view of the fact that the writ-applicant has not violated any of the provision of the Act or the policy governing the Policy of Fishing, 2004 and merely on the basis of hurting the religious sentiments of certain community, the contract awarded to the writ-applicant could not have been cancelled.

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

Submissions on behalf of the respondent - State :-

4. The writ-application was opposed by Mr.Chintan Dave, the learned AGP appearing for the State of Gujarat.

4.1 At the outset it was submitted that the writ-applicant did not belong to the fishermen community by birth. Fishing was not the only livelihood for the members of the writ- applicant and it was not their inherent right to be awarded contract and the writ-applicant could not ask for the said contract as a matter of right. He submitted that no fundamental right of the writ-applicant was abridged by any action of the respondent - State.

4.2 He submitted that the Collector, Sabarkantha by letter dated 14.2.2018 addressed to the Commissioner, Fisheries opined that the lake was surrounded by various temples and that the lake may not be given for carrying on fishing activities. He further submitted that the Raigadh Gram Panchayat, members of Taluka Panchayat, Himmatnagar and Shri Yogendrabhai Rushiraj Agnihotri on behalf of all the residents of Raigadh village made several representations to the Hon'ble Chief Minister requesting that Pratapsagar Lake should be restricted for fishing activities. The said representation was dated 9.5.2018. On receipt of the representation made by the local villagers the Collector, Himmatnagar deputed the Dy. Collector and Mamlatdar, Himmatnagar to visit the lake and

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

record the statement of the villagers. The Dy. Collector and Mamlatdar, Himmatnagar submitted a report to the Collector on 15.9.2018 which stated that the lake was surrounded by many temples and is visited by the villagers and, therefore, opined that the lake may not be used for fishing activities as it would result in hurting religious sentiments of the villagers and would result in disturbance of law and order situation.

4.3 He submitted that the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Himmatnagar also visited the village and interacted with the members of the panchayat as well as the villagers and prepared a rojkam on 27.12.2018. The villagers were informed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries about the prospects, if the fishing activity was permitted to continue. However, the panchayat and villagers did not agree to proposition made by the Assistant Director, Fisheries and they reiterated their stance that according to them carrying on fishing activities at Pratapsagar Lake would hurt religious sentiments and, therefore, the contract dated 24.10.2017 was cancelled. The Commissioner of Fisheries by letter dated 1.5.2019 stated that as per Clause 13(1) of the lease policy dated 25.2.2004 and 25(10) of the rectified lease policy dated 13.2.2005 the authority was empowered to cancel the contract and declare any lake not to be given for cultivation, if the decision was taken after conducting proper inquiry with respect to any objections received by the authorities. The said Clause 25(10)

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

of the lease policy dated 13.2.2005 is produced thus, :-

"25(10) Contracts of the reservoirs which are opposed or objected and if such objections are reasonable, then in such case appropriate decision shall have to be taken at the Government level after reviewing the contract of concerned reservoir."

He therefore submitted that the said decision of cancelling the contract of writ-applicant dated 29.12.2018 as well as the order dated 6.11.2019 were taken after following due procedure and, therefore the writ-application was not required to be entertained and the same was liable to be rejected in limine.

5. We have heard Mr. Subramaniam Iyer, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant and Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State.

Analysis :-

6. The writ-applicant was awarded contract on 24.10.2017 for a period of five years between 2017 and 2022. As the Writ Petition (PIL) No.143 of 2017 was filed before this Court, the contract of the writ-applicant was suspended by the authority by order dated 21.2.2018 subject to the final disposed of the PIL. Though the PIL came to be withdrawn, the order of

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

suspension of contract was not revoked and, therefore, the writ-applicant approached this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.13205 of 2018. This Court by order dated 4.12.2018 disposed of the Special Civil Application No.13205 of 2018 by issuing certain directions to the respondent authority as discussed above.

6.1 Pursuant to the said directions the authority issued show cause notice to the writ-applicant and the writ-applicant was given an opportunity of hearing thereby duly observing the principles of natural justice. By order dated 29.12.2018 (Annexure-A1) the Assistant Director, Fisheries after hearing the writ-applicant cancelled the contract awarded to the writ- applicant. The appeal also came to be dismissed by the Dy. Director, Fisheries by order dated 6.11.2019.

6.2 We have also noticed that the respondent authority has followed the due procedure in accordance with the lease policy, 2004 amended as per government resolution dated 13.2.2005 i.e. :-

(a) The Collector deputed the Dy. Collector and Mamlatdar to look into the objections raised by the villagers.

(b) The Dy. Collector and Mamlatdar gave their report to the Collector on 15.9.2018 stating that the villagers and local body have reservation with respect to the permission granted to the

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

writ-applicant for conducting fishing activities.

(c) The Collector informed about the aforesaid to the Commissioner, Fisheries. The Commissioner, Fisheries also held a meeting with the villagers as also the office bearers of the Panchayat and appraised them about the advantages of fishing activities.

(d) From the report it is clear that inspite of pursuance by the respondent - State authorities the panchayat as well as villagers did not agree to permit the fishing activities in the Pratapsagar lake.

(e) In view of the aforesaid the authorities ultimately invoked Clause 25(10) of the lease policy, 2004 amended as per the government resolution dated 13.2.2005 and taking into consideration the issue relating to maintenance of law and order proceeded to cancel or terminate the contract.

7. In Municipal Council Neemuch Vs. Mahadeo AIR 2019 SC 4517, the apex court held in para 14 to 17 which is produced thus :

"In the present case, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have arrived at a finding that such a sanction was, in fact, granted. We will examine the correctness of the said finding of fact at a subsequent stage. However, before doing that, we propose to examine the scope of the powers of the

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

High Court of judicial review of an administrative action.

Though, there are a catena of judgments of this Court on the said issue, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 lays down the basic principles which still hold the field. Paragraph 77 of the said judgment reads thus:

77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be:

1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?

2. committed an error of law,

3. committed a breach of the Rules of natural justice,

4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or,

5. Abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under:

(i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.

(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.

(iii) Procedural impropriety.

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

The above are only the broad grounds but it does not Rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, 'consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention.

It could thus be seen that the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion, that the decision maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decision- making power or when it is found that the decision of the decision maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of "Wednesbury Unreasonableness" or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision making process. It is also equally well settled, that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision making process.

This Court recently in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim reported in 2019 had again an occasion to consider the scope of interference Under Article 226 in an administrative action.

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

31. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137. If the provision of a statutory Rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari.

32. The sweep of power Under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse.

33. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.

It could thus be seen that an interference by the High Court would be warranted only when the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law, i.e., when the error is apparent on the face of the record and is self evident. The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at. It has been reiterated that the test is not what the court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken. Not only this but such a decision must have led to manifest injustice."

8. In our view, as both the authorities concurrently took the decision to cancel the contract dated 24.10.2017 awarded to the writ-applicant invoking the Clause 25(10) of the lease policy, 2004 we should not interfere with such administrative decision taken by the competent authorities.

9. In light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex

C/SCA/782/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2021

Court the decision arrived at by the authorities below is just and proper and we are not inclined to interfere with with the same.

10. In view of the prevailing policy of the State Government, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said decision taken by the competent authorities.

11. It is open for the writ-applicant to avail any other legal remedy available in accordance with law.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) K.K. SAIYED