Judgment :- 1. I do not think that any justiciable question under Art.226 of the Constitution arises in this Original Petition. The question raised may, perhaps, have political overtones. The petitioner cannot seek any relief by way of mandamus or other prerogative writs issued from this court for a matter which is not in the permissible scope of judicial review. As far as possible, even in policy matters of State, the court seldom scrutinies the wisdom of the Government exercising its power of judicial control on administrative matters. The court cannot in the discharge of its functions, correct matters which are purely political. 2. The petitioner submits that he is an unemployed youth aged 25 years. His case is that one political party which is a constituent of the Left Democratic Front, which has formed the Government, has held out a promise in its election manifesto jobs for unemployed in the State. The petitioner's grievance is that promise made by that party has not been fulfilled, even though that party has been voted to power by the people to form the Government. 3. A breach of a promise in a manifesto is not a matter for this court to consider under Art.226. If a political party has given such a promise, perhaps, it may have a moral obligation to the voters to act according to the promise held out to the people. But, this court cannot issue a mandamus to discharge this obligation. Normally, this court can issue a writ of mandamus only when a statutory functionary or the Government declines to discharge its statutory obligations even after repeated demands. I can never see any statutory obligation on the part of the Government in regard to the promise made in the manifesto. 4. The petitioner has sent a letter to the Chief Minister, copy of which is produced in the O.P. marked as Ext.P1. He says in the letter that he is unemployed. He reminds the Chief Minister of the promise in the election manifesto and about the promises he has made during the election campaign, that the unemployed will be provided with jobs. Petitioner has made a prayer in the original petition that bis letter Ext. PI as well as other letters sent by similarly situated persons should not be forwarded to the Prime Minister. 5. I do not think that this court can give any such direction. Petitioner has made a prayer in the original petition that bis letter Ext. PI as well as other letters sent by similarly situated persons should not be forwarded to the Prime Minister. 5. I do not think that this court can give any such direction. When a Chief Minister receives a letter, I am sure that he will consider the letter in most appropriate manner and if this court gives any direction to act or not to act in a particular manner that will be totally without jurisdiction and plainly beyond the powers of this court. I feel that in matters like this, this court should display an attitude of judicial deference to the Government's discretion or the discretion of the Chief Minister by refusing to give any sort of directions. 6. I should also bear in mind that great principle that courts have to be judicious, careful and prudent in seeing that they should not overstep the confines of their powers. The reason is plain and clear because to them is assigned the function of being the guardian of the Constitution. This is the great expectation of the founding fathers of the constitution. It is a faith and trust reposed by the framers of the Constitution in the courts and their position in this respect is akin to that of a trustee. When the other agencies or wings of the State overstep their limits, the aggrieved parties can always approach the courts and seek redress against such transgression. When, however, the courts themselves are guilty of such transgression, to which forum would the aggrieved parties appeal? I see no merit in this Original Petition. It is dismissed.