ORDER

No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged this writ petition to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.5, Cooperative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 20.01.2020 issued by the 1st respondent and letter in Na.Ka.No.70538/2017/Thikakupal dated 22.01.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent.

3.Prima facie it appears that the issue is now covered against the petitioner in terms of the order dated 14.05.2022 in W.P.Nos.23369 and

25287 of 2021. The operative portion of the order reads as under:-

“38. If we look at the principle enunciated in the aforestated cases, it would make abundantly clear that, the scope of judicial review on policy matters are very limited. Moreover, whether a particular type of training Institute is required for the state or not is necessarily a policy decision to be taken, of course on the basis of the expert views given in this regard, by the State Government. Like that, such kind of training institute should be at the State level or National level also again be the policy decision to be taken by the State Government.

39. If at all, a policy decision already been taken by the State Government to establish a State level Training Institute at Yercaud, ofcourse the successive Government has taken a further policy decision for specific reasons that, such kind of State Level Institute is not required in the State because already two such State Level Institutes are located and are well doing, moreover spending of a sum of Rs.61.80 crores, to establish one more State Level Training Institute is a wasteful expenditure, those reasons cannot be pierced by this Court by way of judicial review to give the answer that, the subsequent policy decision is not correct and the earlier one is correct.

40. If an established arbitrariness is available for the scrutiny before this Court, then only during the judicial process, the Court can interfere in any such decision by adopting the Wednesbury-s principle of arbitrariness.

41. Now the present State Administration has taken a decision to establish a National Level Institute at Kodaikanal, for which certain reasons have been given, ofcourse the said decision is not questioned by the petitioner in these writ petitions. Even the said decision cannot be stated to be a flawed one by this Court, unless and until the explicit arbitrariness touching the Constitutional parameters in this regard as enunciated under various decisions of the Hon-ble Apex Court are available for Judicial Review.

42. Like that, a decision is taken by the Government by way of policy decision not to have a State Level Co~operative Training Institute at Yercaud, unless it is an arbitrary exercise of power without any reason or rhyme or the very exercise itself is a colourable exercise, the Court cannot extend its judicial arm to question the veracity of such decision taken by the Government.

43. In the present case, though a decision was taken by the earlier Government to establish the State Level Institute, for which, fund has been allocated, ofcourse from various sources like Co~operative Banks etc., and some initial construction work was commenced, at that stage, the present Government has reviewed the situation in the Review Meeting of the Department concerned headed by the Chief Minister. Out of the Review, several reasons had come out or emanated, which suggest unequivocally that, such kind of State Level Institute at Yercaud is an unwanted expenditure to be incurred, as already there are two State Level Institutions functioning well. Moreover, initially the fund was allotted Rs.15 crores and odd and for a small extension of the area, i.e., the expanded construction in a small area, the fund has been enhanced to Rs.61.80 crores, for which, according to the Government, there has been no discussion or reasons or plan at the Department level, i.e., the Co~operative Department and all of a sudden, since the fund has been enhanced from Rs.15 crores to Rs.61 crores, that wo