SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Pat) 693

PATNA HIGH COURT
R.M.Lodha and Chandramauli Kumar Prasad JJ.
Om Prakash Dhanuka
Versus
Union Of India
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10603 of 2006 ;
Decided On : MAY 15, 2008

Judicial review cannot be applied to matters of policy, and the remedy for such issues lies elsewhere.

Headnote:

Industrial Package - Public Interest Litigation - The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for direction to the Central Government to formulate an industrial package for existing and new industries in the State of Bihar, similar to those offered to other states. The court held that the controversy raised in the writ petition related to a policy matter not amenable to judicial review and cannot be examined by the Court in its high prerogative jurisdiction. The remedy lies elsewhere.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought direction to the Central Government to formulate an industrial package for existing and new industries in the State of Bihar, similar to those offered to other states. The Central Government argued that Bihar does not fit the criteria for such incentives and concessions.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the controversy raised in the writ petition related to a policy matter not amenable to judicial review and cannot be examined by the Court in its high prerogative jurisdiction. The court concluded that no direction could be given and disposed of the writ application accordingly.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for the formulation of an industrial package for Bihar, similar to those offered to other states.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the controversy raised in the writ petition related to a policy matter not amenable to judicial review and cannot be examined by the Court in its high prerogative jurisdiction.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's plea and disposed of the writ application accordingly.

Judgment

1. By this writ application in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, petitioner has prayed for direction to the Central Government and its functionaries more particularly the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to formulate an Industrial package containing concessions and incentives for the existing Industries and other incentive package to such Industrialist who intend to set up new industries in the State on the line of similar packages offered to the States of Uttaranchal, Himachal Pradesh etc.

2. Petitioner has sought to make out a case that the parameters prescribed by the Government of India for such incentive packages are fully met by the State of Bihar and cannot be treated in a different and discriminatory manner by the Union of India.

3. The Central Government has filed its counter affidavit and set out the reasons as to why State of Bihar does not fit in the category of incentive packages and incentives for promoting the industries which has been given to few States like State of Jammu & Kashmir, Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh.

4. Principally, it is stated that rationale for extending concessions and incentives for promoting the industries in the State inter alia, include:

i. Geographical isolation;

ii. Inaccessible terrain;

iii. Poor Resources base and remoteness to larger market; and

iv. Poor infrastructure.

5. It is stated that State of Bihar does not face such adverse situation and, therefore, not entitled to these concessions.

6. It is true that the petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 and given some facts about the backwardness of the State in the matters of Agriculture, Infrastructure, Primary Health and Education, Investment, Budget and Consumer Market etc. However, the fact of the matter is that the controversy raised in the writ petition relates to a policy matter which is not amenable to judicial review and cannot be examined by the Court in its high prerogative jurisdiction. If some concessions have been given to few States which fulfill the criterion and parameters fixed by the Central Government, we are afraid, the citizen of State which has not been given such concessions cannot be permitted to agitate such issues before the Court. The remedy lies else where.

7. We are afraid that no direction can be given.

8. Writ application is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top