JUDGMENT

A.P. Misra, J. - The petitioner of this writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus against the respondents to ban all strikes undertaken by the various units of the State Government as it affects the interest of the public at large. He has also sought for quashing the decision by the respondent No. 6 namely. Sri Lok Pati Tripathi. Health Minister. U.P.. which is stated to be incorporated in Annexure 8 to the writ petition. He has further sought for necessary action against the concerned respondents for the failure of their duties towards the Constitution and public welfare.

2. The petitioner in this case has argued in person. He has described himself in the petition as a social worker, humanist and a social reformer. He has further stated in the petition that he is devoted and dedicated to the maintenance of peace, progress. prosperity, pleasure. parity, justice and discipline. In this petition, the petitioner has expressed his grievance against the Government for its inaction in various fields, which has led to gross indiscipline, disobedience, lawlessness and corruption in the Cour)try. His main contention in the petition is that because of strikes by various constituents of the Government bodies, namely, doctors' strike, strike by the employees of Jal Sansthan. Electric Supply Undertaking, City Roadways staff, Telephone Department, Railway, Nagar Mahapalika, Air Lines etc., the benefit of which is sought to be received by the public does not reach to them, and, in effect, it is creating chaos, which is adversely affecting the life of the community and each citizen of this Country. The Petitioner's main attack during the course of argument has been regarding inconvenience and hardship on account of strike by the doctors in the various Government hospitals including Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital and the Medical College at Allahabad. However, the pith and substance of this petition is that since the individuals manning these State constituents are not performing their fundamental duties, this Court should issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to ban strike in all these constituents. In effect, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Government is neither following proper policy nor effectively performing its administrative duties in making these constituent units function properly so that effective benefit may accrue to the society which Government is bound to ensure.

3. The object which the petitioner seeks to achieve cannot be doubted to be very laudable, yet, this Court cannot interfere in the policy decision of the Government nor in deciding upon administrative measures to be taken to see that its various constituents function properly and perform their obligations to the society. The Constitution has very clearly demarcated the functions of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The petitioner, by means of this petition, is merely seeking a writ to the Government to decide it as a policy to ban the strikes and also seeking, in effect that law should be made that those not performing their fundamental duties should be punished. Both of these are in the realm of the Executive and the Legislative organs for deciding the policy and making law to that effect. The Court. while exercising powers under Article 226'of the Constitution, cannot undertake either the function of the Executive or the Legislature. It is only when an order is passed and law is made by the Executive or the Legislature that this Court can examine whether such an order or the law is sustainable in the eye of law or not. The Court can further test the executive order, if passed, whether it is arbitrary or not or whether it violates any of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. As stated above, the prayer in this writ petition and also the averments made in this writ petition only point out government's failure which has led to the present inefficiency of various constituent units of the Government. In a democrati