The decision to upgrade a railway halt to a railway station is an administrative decision that is not subject to judicial review unless the petitioner can show that the decision was unreasonable or mala fide.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 6.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30-4-99 (Annexure-6), addressed to the petitioner, whereby his licence to man the erstwhile Harnaut Railway halt has been terminated after giving him one months notice in accordance with clause 18 of the agreement inter partes (Annexure-1). The railway station at Harnaut was earlier a Halt. According to the regulations of the railway administration, a Halt, in contra- distinction to a railway station or a junction, has to be manned by a private person in accordance with the agreement to be entered into by the railway. In other words, a railway station or a railway junction is managed departmentally. The railway administration in their wisdom decided to upgrade Harnaut Halt to a railway station, the consequential effect of which, inter alia, is that the petitioners licence to manage the erstwhile Harnaut Halt was required to be terminated. Accordingly the railway administration issued the impugned order dated 30-4-99 (Annexure-6), terminating the petitioners licence after giving him one months notice.

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same is in the teeth of clause 18 of the agreement, which can be terminated after giving one months notice only for the reasons specified therein, for example, breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement etc. I am unable to accede to the contention for the reason that there are two independent clauses in clause 18 which reads as follows :-

"(18) This Agreement shall have effect from 15-11-92 and shall be terminated upon one months notice in writing on other side subject to the (sic) provide that should there by any breach of any of the condition of this Agreement by the local contractor of the local contract or shall become insolvent or enter into any composition for the benefit of or agreement with his creditors or have any distress levied on his property then and in any such case the Rly. Admn. shall be entitled to terminate the Agreement forthwith."It is manifest from a plain reading of this clause that it consists of two parties. The Ist part deals with termination for undisclosed reasons after serving one months notice which has been invoked in the present case. The 2nd clause deals with termination forthwith for various reasons, for example, violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The impugned order says that one months notice has been given and also does not assign any one of the reasons mentioned in the 2nd clause. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that the Ist part of this clause has been invoked by the railway authorities and it cannot be faulted. The contention is, therefore, rejected.

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the decision to upgrade Harnaut Halt to the position of a railway station is uncalled for and administratively incorrect and inadvisable. Relying on an undated letter marked Annexure-5 from the railway administration to the District Magistrate, he submitted that the same represents the factual position arrived at by the railway administration while dealing with the issue according to which, in his submission, the upgradation would be wholly unviable. I am unable to accede to this contention either, pre-eminently for the reason it is basically and fundamentally an administrative decision.4.1. Mr. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, has rightly submitted that the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 to interfere with such administrative decision and/or decisions pursuant to a policy decision are normally immune from judicial reviewability. I am in this connection reminded of the illumine decision of England, reported in (1947) 2 All ER 680 (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. V/s. Wednesbury Corporation) wherein, speaki