C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, a society registered under the Co-operative societies Act, has filed this Writ Petition for quashing of action notice dated 16-6-1995 (Ann, P/1) and alternatively for declaring that condition no. (1) of the said notice which inter alia provides for experience of fishing 800 M. T of fishes from one reservior one year during preceding three years for participating in the auocion for settlement of Gandhi Sagar reservior, be declared illegal. ( 2 ) BY order dated 29-6-1995, this Court allowed the M. P. Rajya mastsya Vikas Nigam (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam for brevity) and its functionary respondents 2 and 3 to hold auction, by restraining them from finalising it. ( 3 ) ALL the respondents have entered their appearance and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of. at motion hearing stage itself. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT Nigam publisted a notice in the news paper for settlement of fishing rights of Gandhi Sagar reservior from the date of settlement till 15-6-2000. According to the terms of the notice, the bidders were required to deposit as earnest money a sum of Rs. 66 lakhs an hour before auction to enable them to participate in the auction. The auction was to be held on 30-6-1995 at 3. 00 p. m. ( 5 ) AS the validity of condition No. 1 of the auction notice is being assailed in the present writ petition, it is apt to reprodue the same : it means as follows : -in the auction only those bidders can participate who have successfully fished 800 M T. of fishes from one reservior in one year in any of the proceeding three vears. For this the bidders were required to attach a certificate granted by the competent authority. The co-operative societies of the State were given relaxation up to 10% of the aforesaid limit. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to this clause, condition precedent for participation in the auction was to have experience of fishing 800 M. T of fishes from the resesvior in one year in preceding three years. Validity of this condition has been questioned iu the present writ petition. ( 7 ) SHRI Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that fixing of experience of fishing 800 M T. is irrational and arbitrary and the same does not achieve any object. Validity of this condition has been questioned iu the present writ petition. ( 7 ) SHRI Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that fixing of experience of fishing 800 M T. is irrational and arbitrary and the same does not achieve any object. He further submitted that not only this, the experience is confined in one year in preceding three years and that too from one reservior. In his submission this condition is 'tailor made' to suit respondent No. 4 and only to make him eligible to participate in the bid. He has further drawn my attention that present reservior was currently settled with respondent No 3 ard an attempt was made to extend the settlement for another five years. but the same was turned down by council of ministers, and now in round about way, the same purpose is sought to be achieved by laying the aforesaid arbitrary condition. ( 8 ) ALTHOUGH the writ petition was filed when the auction was yet to be held but it is admitted that during pendency of the writ petition, now bid was held and respondent No. 3 only was found eligible. Other two cooperative societies, who appeared in the auction had experience of fishing 800 m. T. of fishing but they did not deposit earnest money of Rs 66 lakh and, therefore, they not held eligible for parficipating in the bid. The two co-operative societies which wanted to participation the bid were assigned work by respondent No. 3 himself This is further no! disputed that final settlement has not been made in favour of respondent No, 3 because of restraint order passed by this Court. ( 9 ) SHRI Mathur appearing on behalf of respondent Nigam submitted that past experience of the State Government as well as the Nigam were that contractors after securing the settlement, used to abandon it after some, that causing immense hardships to the fishermen. He submitted that the impugned condition of experiene of fishing 800 M T. of fish was not come out of sleeve of the Nigam but seeing the yield of preceding years the said weight has been fixed. He further submitted that this condition is in the shape of policy decision and to use his words 'being not palpably arbitrary' the Court is prevented from interfering in the same, in its writ jurisdiction. He further submitted that this condition is in the shape of policy decision and to use his words 'being not palpably arbitrary' the Court is prevented from interfering in the same, in its writ jurisdiction. Shri Mathur further submitted that the writ petition lacks bona fide and fit to be dismissed on this score also. According to him, members of the petitioner society live in Bhopal or confined to vicinity of the said town but the reservicr Gandhi Sagar is at far off distance from the said place. Further referring to the audited accourt of the society he submitted that its poor financial status clearly shows that they in fact it is not capable of taking settlment but went to create hsi dererce in the way of respondent No. 3. ( 10 ) SHRI S Kulsreshtha leaired Addl Advacate General, in addition submitted that expericnce of fishing of 800 M T. of fishapre supposes that the bidder is possessed of infra structure like insulated trucker and healthy financial background. He submitted that prime concerned of the State goverrments as well as the Nigam, is welfare of fishermen involved in the fishing operations. He further submitted that selection of a person having experience would simply adequate infra structure and this would necessary result into fishing of more yield. This would benefit the fishermen as they are paid remuneration on the basis of weight of catch as also 20% of catch. This according to him providing experience of weight has salutory purpose. ( 11 ) SHRI B G. Neema appearing on behalf of respondent No 4 while adopting the arguments advanced by Shri Matbur further submitted that his client has already deposited earrest money Rs. 66 lakhs and he being the only eligible person, the settlement in his favour may be allowed to be made. ( 12 ) CONDITION impugned can be split into three parts to make the bidder eligible viz. (i) experience of fishing 800 M. T. , (ii) in one reservior and only an of on year and in preceding three years. I shall address myself to each of the said conditions sepsrately. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, before I do so, it is apt to answer the points raised by shri Mathur that the aforesaid condition being in the realm of policy decision, the same is cot fit to be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction. I shall address myself to each of the said conditions sepsrately. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, before I do so, it is apt to answer the points raised by shri Mathur that the aforesaid condition being in the realm of policy decision, the same is cot fit to be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Shri Mathur in support of the aforesaid submission has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Ration Vikreta sangh v. State M. P. [ air 1981 SC 2001 ], Its relevant portion is as under :-"the question whether fair price shops in the State of M P. under a government scheme should be directly run by the Government through the instrumentality of consumers cooperative Societies as its agent or by retail dealers to be appointed by the Collector under clause 3 of the Control Order, is essentially a matter of policy with Me court is not concerned. "further reliance has been placed in the decision of Apex Court in the case of state of M. P. v. Nandlal Jatswal [air 1987 SC 25ij wherein the Supreme court held as under :"what can be said in repard to legislation relating to economic matlers must apply equally in regard to executive action in the field of econimic activities though the executive decision may not be placed on as high a pedestal as legislative judgment in so far as judicial deference is concerned. Court must not forget that in complex economic matters every decision is necessarily emperic and t is based on experimentation or what one may call 'trial and error method' and, therefore, its validity cannot be tested on any rigid 'a priori' considerations or on the application of any strait-jacket formula. The Court must while adjudging the constitusional validity of an executive decision relating to economic millers grant a certain measure of freedom of 'play' in the joints to the executive. The Court must while adjudging the constitusional validity of an executive decision relating to economic millers grant a certain measure of freedom of 'play' in the joints to the executive. "again in the case of Asif Hameed and others v. State of J. and K. and others, [air 1980 SC 1899] the Apex Court cansidered the scope of judicial review of policy decision of the State or statutory body held as follows : when a Stase action is challenged, the function of the Court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and junctions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the Court must strike-down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits, The court sits in judgment or the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority- The Constitution does not permit the coart to direct or advice the executive in the matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers. ( 14 ) SHRI Mathur Mas further drawn my attention to the judgment of supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Sec. Education v. Pantosh Bhupesh etc. [ air 1984 SC 1543 ] and my particular attention has been drawn to the following passage :". . . . . . . . . SO long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. "relying on the aforesaid authority Shri Mathur submitted that this Court should not interfere with policy decision of the Nigam in putting experience clause in the auction notice. "relying on the aforesaid authority Shri Mathur submitted that this Court should not interfere with policy decision of the Nigam in putting experience clause in the auction notice. ( 15 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the points, I do not have the slightest hesitation in holding it as a general rule that a court cannot interfere with the administrative policy of the Government or the Statutory corporation or the authorises which are State within the meaning of Art 12 of the Constitution of India but the exceptions to the aforesaid general rule have been reconized by the court viz where the fundamental right of an individual is affected or some constitutional provision is violated. Where the policy is against public interest or the same is arbitrary or unreasonable, to quote a few. In such a situation judicial review of even policy decision is permissible. The word 'policy' according to the Black's Law Dictionay 6th edn. means the general principle by which a Government as judicial in its management of public affairs and according to the concise Oxford Dictionary (8th Edn.) a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government. Thus I am of the considered opinion that the condition impugned in the present writ petition i. e. laying down a condition of eligibility for a particular reservior does not come within the purview of policy decision. As a result, this condition is subject to judicial review. ( 16 ) IT is projected before me that previous experience of State government and Nigam had been that the contractors used to adandon the contract midway leaving the fisherman in lurch resulting into immense hardship to them Firstly, this is basic human instinct to earn maximum after getting settlement in ones favour and it is difficult to approve this line of reasoning. A person required to deposit Rs. 66 lakhs and after spending more than a crore is not likely to abandon the same. To put the record straight it is stated that this condition in the auction notice has bsen nut for the first time and it is the allegation of the petitioner that it has been done to suit respondents No 4. 66 lakhs and after spending more than a crore is not likely to abandon the same. To put the record straight it is stated that this condition in the auction notice has bsen nut for the first time and it is the allegation of the petitioner that it has been done to suit respondents No 4. ( 17 ) EVEN if it is assumed that the contractors may run away after getting the settlement, I do not have any hesitation in holding that fixing of experience of 800 M. T. will not serve any purpose and the same is not possible to achieve the object sought-for. There is no guarantee that an experienced person will not abancion the contract in midway. ( 18 ) IN my opinion what can be achieved directly, there is no reason to lay down a condition to achieve the same indirectly. If the purpose of the yielding experience condition of 800 M. T, was to see that adequate infra structure and finance is available at the disposal of the bidder, the same could have been placed as condition directly. Thus the object sought to be achieved by putting condition of 800 M. T. is arbitrary irrational and fit to be struck down. Thus even assuming that the so-called condition ss a policy decision, it pulpably arbitrary and subject to judicial review. ( 19 ) NOT only this, the other fact of this condition that experience of 800 M. T. must relate to only one reseiviors, also seems to be absolutely irrational and on the face of it, arbitrary. Even if I proceed on the assumption that experience of 800 M. T. has any nexus, It fail to understand how the said experience in one reservior would be a reasonable condition. In fact i am of the view that experience varied conditions should be more helpful than putting condition of experience in one reservior only. Thus in my opinion this condition is absolutely arbitrary. ( 20 ) IN view of my answer to the aforesaid questions, it is not necessary to answer as to whether the condition of experience in one year within 3 preceding years is arbitrary or not. ( 21 ) IT is well settled that if an action of the State Government or its functionary is arbitrary the same violates Article 14 of the Constitution of india. ( 21 ) IT is well settled that if an action of the State Government or its functionary is arbitrary the same violates Article 14 of the Constitution of india. Reference in this connection can he made to the decision of S C. in the case of Menka Gandhi v. Union of India [alr 1978 S. C. 598], the relevant portion whereof is quoted below :"56. Now the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of Article 14 ; what is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this article ? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Consitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic And, therefore, it must not be substated to a narrow, redantic or lexocographic apporach. No attempt should be made to truncate all embracing scope and meaning for do so would be to violate its activist Magnitude Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. We must raiterate here what was pointed out by the majority in E. P. Royappa v State of T N (1974) 2 SCR 347 [air l974 S C 555] namely, that 'from a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbirariness an sworn enemies ; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implict in it that it is unequal both according to the political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Article 14. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness which legally as well as philosophically is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article21, must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity wilh Article 14. It must he 'right and just and fair' and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive ; otherwise, it would be not procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 sould not be satisfied. How far natural justice is an essential element of procedure established by law. It must he 'right and just and fair' and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive ; otherwise, it would be not procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 sould not be satisfied. How far natural justice is an essential element of procedure established by law. "applying the aforesaid test, I am of the considered opinion that condition no, 1 referred to above, is absolutely arbitrary and must be struck down. ( 22 ) BEFORE I conclude. I must answer an ancillary submission of Shri mathur that the writ petition lacks bona fide on the ground that members of the petitioner society reside at a distant place from the place where the reservior is situated. The Nigam is be I owing hot and cold at the same time. To impress upon me that their action is bona fide, all the time it was emphasised before me that auction notice was published in various news papers published from Delhi, Calcutta and Madres. The publication of this auction notice, in my opinion, preesupposes that Nigam expected bidders from far off places to take part. Further Aricle 19 of the Const, guarantees its citizens to move freely through out the territory of India and to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation or trads or business. Respondent No. 4 himself in a resident of Jabalpur, which is not nearer to the reservior than bhopal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if it is confined to the person residing in the vicinity of reservior, the some will plainly violate article 19 of the Const. Thus, I do not find any substance in this submission of Shri Mathur. ( 23 ) AS regards submission of Shri Mathur that financial status of the petitioner does not enable it to take settlement, also, does not impress me. The respondent Nigam has stated that financial health of the petitioner is absolutely bad whereas the same has been contravened by the petitioners and they have stated that they have taken settlement after paying large sum after last audited account and they have capability of paying earnest money aslit has the capecity of taking settlement and paying necessary amount. In view of the aforesaid factual position. I am of the view that the petitioner does not lack bona fide and submission of Shri Mathur is fit to be rejected. In view of the aforesaid factual position. I am of the view that the petitioner does not lack bona fide and submission of Shri Mathur is fit to be rejected. ( 24 ) TO complete the record, it is stated that an application for intervention has been filed on behalf of Adarsh Matsya Udyog and during the course of arguments Shri. S. S Garg has offered to take settlement at rupees two crores. The amount offered by respondent No. 4 is only Rs. 1. 78 crores. ( 25 ) FOR reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and condition No. (1) of the auction notice dated 16-6-1995 (Ann. /p1)opined alone is fit to be quashed and I do so, accordingly. ( 26 ) IN the result, the application is allowed with costs to be paid by respondent No. 1. Counsel's fee is assessed at Rs. 2,500/- if certified. Application allowed. .