2006 Supreme(SC) 621

2006(6) Supreme 372
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Ekta Shakti Foundation — Appellant
versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of 2006
With
W.P. (C) Nos. 233 and 234 of 2006
Decided on 17-7-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Mandeep Singh Vinaik and Hardeep Singh Anand, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Anup Kumar Srivastava, Mohit Kumar and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In the matter of Policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of the fundamental right is not shown the Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters.
2. Article 14 of the Constitution has no application or justification to legitimize an illegal and illegitimate action. One illegality cannot be compounded by permitting similar illegal or illegitimate or ultra vires acts.

Headnote:Constitution of India — Article 32 — Implementation of a scheme called the ‘Detailed Scheme for capacity Building of Self Help Groups to Prepare and Supply Supplementary Nutrition under the Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Programme’ — Writ petitions filed challenging legality of certain terms in inviting offers — Elimination of contractors — It was stipulated that registered non-profit organizations with atleast 3 years experience were eligible to apply — Prayer made for a declaration that the three years period stipulated is irrational, contrary to the objects of the scheme and declared to be invalid — It was submitted that eligibility criteria should be on the basis of actual experience of the persons who are in charge of the legal entities and not the time period of three years as a registered entity — It is not the case of petitioners that with any oblique motive the eligibility criteria has been stipulated — Whether Court can interfere with the policy decision of the Government — (No) — Constitution of India — Article 14.

       Held : While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to sermonize any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court it cannot interfere.(Para 10)

       The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.(Para 12)

       The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits.(Para 17)

       So far as the allotment to non-eligible societies is concerned even if it is accepted, though specifically denied by the Authority, to be true that does not confer any right on the appellants. Two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the appellant cannot strengthen its case. It has to establish strength of its case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality.(Para 21)

       It is not the case of the petitioners that with any oblique motive the eligibility criteria has been stipulated. On the contrary after analyzing the issues, a Committee appointed by the respondent had suggested the norms and the schemes was accordingly prepared. We do not find any irrationality much less something which is totally out of context to justify interference.(Para 22)

       Clause 4 of the Scheme (Broad Description of Proposed arrangement) indicates that in order to implement this Courts order there was desirability to discourage contractors and involve SSG through non-profit organisations. As the scheme itself provides, the intention is to make the SSGs. fully equipped within a certain period after these NGOs. go out of the picture and State Government steps in. (Para 23)