Delhi High Court: “Court Cannot Replace Government Policy”

To issue an writ of mandamus to the respondent to remove all subsidies which are delivered at door step for people without any specific disability, liability, restriction, or condition, failing which such scheme will damage welfare state and such damage will be with irreparable loss and injury to society and nation.
To issue an writ of mandamus to the respondent to not make such freebie policy which are delivered at door step for people without any specific disability, liability, restriction, or condition, failing which such scheme will damage welfare state and such damage will be with irreparable loss and injury to society and nation.
To issue such further order/s to respondents as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Submission of the Petitioner

In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted that the respondents are giving several subsidies at door steps of the people without any specific disability, liability, restrictions or conditions. According to the petitioner, this is contrary to the objective of establishing a welfare state. By way of example, it is submitted by the petitioner that electricity subsidy is being granted to all persons.

The petitioner further submitted that similarly, water subsidy is also being given by the respondents to all. However, in this regard he has not relied upon any of the annexures or any policy of the respondents. The main contention of the petitioner is that there is no need to give all these subsidies to all the people at large, and the resources which are saved ought to be used for other beneficial purposes.

Observation of the Court

Having heard the petitioner, who appears in person and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that providing water and electricity facilities at a concessional rate, are purely policy decisions takenby the concerned Governments. This Court is not inclined to replace the State policy. The Courts cannot replace any policy even if it regards a different policy to be a better policy.

It is evident from the aforesaid decisions also that a policy decision of the government cannot be interdicted by the writ court in the absence of a finding of unconstitutionality, illegality or mala fides. The petitioner has failed to make out any of these grounds, or to demonstrate any manifest arbitrariness on the part of the executive.

We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this writ petition to alter the policy decision of the respondents. Water and electricity concessions are given by the respondents as per their policy decisions based upon application of facts and situations prevailing in the particular society. The policy decision is always based upon the priorities of the executive, elected by the people. We are not inclined to alter the policy decision of the Government unless any illegality or otherwise is pointed out in detail.

Direction of the Court

As stated above, the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality about the electricity and water concessions given by the respondents. The Government cannot run at the desire of a person like this petitioner. Bare assertions have no value in the eyes of law. Assertions are required to be supported by cogent materials and the alleged illegality has to be made out, otherwise, the Courts will be extremely slow in interfering with the policy decision. Hence, also the Courtsees no reason to interfere with this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi State Legal Service Authority within four weeks.