JUDGMENT :

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.

1. These four Writ Appeals arise out of the common order in W.P.(MD) Nos. 3339 to 3342 of 2019 dated 27.03.2019 and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Appellants herein were the Respondents 1 to 4 in each of the Writ Petitions. The said Writ Petitions were filed in order to quash G.O.Ms. No. 221 Public Works (G2) Department dated 16.08.2018 (the Impugned G.O.), whereby a single window system was established in respect of registration of all the contractors in Classes I to V, including the renewal of such registration. The Respondent in each Writ Appeal was the Petitioner in the Writ Court and all four Writ Petitions were allowed by the aforesaid common order dated 27.03.2019, which is the impugned order herein.

3. The facts that are relevant for purposes of disposing of these Writ Appeals are as follows:

The registration of contractors in the Public Works Department was initially carried out as per G.O. Ms. No. 1789 Public Works (G2) Department dated 29.12.1992. Thereafter, pursuant to the recommendations of the High Level Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice G. Ramanujam, the above cited G.O. Ms. No. 1789 was superseded by G.O. Ms. No. 222 Public Works(G2) Department dated 08.04.1999. As per the said G.O. Ms. No. 222, contractors were classified into five classes by reference to the value of works and the registration of such contractors was to be done by the Superintending Engineers, as regards Classes I to IV, and by Executive Engineers as regards Class V. Subsequently, a letter dated 16.07.2018 was received from the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General), Chennai, to the effect that many of the contractors had not renewed their registration by providing necessary documents such as Income Tax Clearance Certificate, Goods and Services Tax Registration, Encumbrance Certificate, Solvency Certificate etc. and that the registration of contractors can be carried out more effectively if it is done by the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department under a single window system. Pursuant to the said letter and by accepting the proposal therein of the Engineer-in-Chief, the Government issued the Impugned G.O., whereby the registration of all contractors in classes I to V shall be done in a single window system by the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department, Chennai. The Impugned G.O. was challenged by the Respondent in the respective Writ Appeals on the basis that it was done in a hasty manner and without proper application of mind and that the intention is to allow only wealthy contractors to obtain registration and renewal.

4. The respective Respondent herein also contended that the centralised system would entail submission of applications to the second Appellant herein who, in turn, would forward such applications to the Circle Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer for verification and, thereafter, would send it back to the second Appellant so as to be considered for registration. In effect, it was contended that the system is inefficient, arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. It was also contended that the earlier system was based on the recommendations of the High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice G. Ramanujam and that the said system had been in force for a period of about 19 years and that it has been replaced by the present single window system without proper application of mind. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by the Writ Court by taking judicial notice of the fact that even tender schedules are not being issued in many cases and that the entire process is often skewed to favour certain individuals.

5. After adverting to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the limited scope for judicial review in matters relating to public policy, the Writ Court, never