JUDGMENT MS. KAMLESH SHARMA, J.—The petitioners are residents of different villages in Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra. Being provoked by the tour programme of the Honble Chief Minister that he would inaugurate S.E. Office Shahnehar, Fatehpur at Sihal on 28.6.1998, the petitioners have hastened to file this writ petition on 26.6.1998 with a prayer to restrain Respondent No. 1 from shifting the Circle Office of Shahnehar Project from Jawali to Sihal. The writ petition was taken up for admission on 29.6.1998 when we issued notice to the Respondents and asked them to file their reply. We also observed that material shifting of Circle headquarters from Jawali to Sihal will not be done till we get to know the stand of the Respondents from their reply. Now, the reply-affidavit of the Respondents is on record, to which rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioners. Therefore, we are finally disposing of this matter after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. It is alleged in the writ petition that Shahnehar Project Circle with headquarters at Jawali was created by notification dated 14th October, 1997 (Annexure P-1). As stated in this notification, Shahnehar Project Circle comprised of the Divisions and six Sub-Divisions as follows :— 1. Shahnehar Project Division No. I Sansarpur-Terrace i. Shahnehar Project Sub-Division Sansarpur-Terrace. ii. Shahnehar Project Sub-Division Sathana, iii. Shahnehar Project Sub-Division Ray, 2. Shahnehar Project Division No. II Badhukar i. Shahnehar Project Sub-Division Badhukar ii. Shahnehar Project Sub-Division Ghandran. iii. Shahnehar Project Sub-Division Thakurdwara 3. It is further stated in the writ petition that Jawali is most suitable place for the location of Shahnehar Circle Office as it is not only centrally located but also has all-the amenities of life which promote general public convenience. According to the petitioners, Jawali is a fast developing town. Besides headquarters of Sub-Division number of Government Offices, such as, Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tehsil Office, Treasury, three Offices of Executive Engineers of Irrigation & Public Health, Himachai Pradesh State Electricity Board and Public Works Departments, Employment Exchange Office, Forest Range Office, etc. etc. are located there. It is also stated that there are branches of three nationalized banks, Post Office, Senior Secondary School, three rest houses of the Government, etc. etc at Jawali. There is also Railway Station at Jawali, which is on railway line from Pathankot to Jogindernagar. The population? of Jawali town is about 25,000/-. etc. are located there. It is also stated that there are branches of three nationalized banks, Post Office, Senior Secondary School, three rest houses of the Government, etc. etc at Jawali. There is also Railway Station at Jawali, which is on railway line from Pathankot to Jogindernagar. The population? of Jawali town is about 25,000/-. The Office of Superintending Engineer, Shahnehar Project at Jawali was functioning in a building consisting of seven rooms and one covered shed having a covered area of more than 3,000/~ sq. feet. All the employees of the Circle Office at Jawali were having accommodation for their families there. 4. It is also stated in the writ petition that the Circle Office of Shahnehar Project had successfully functioned at Jawali for more than eight months and there are no valid reasons for shifting it to Sihal after renaming a Circle Office of Shahnehar Project, Fatehpur at Sihal It is alleged by the petitioners that shifting of Circle Office to Sihal is not in the public interest and will not promote either administrative convenience or public convenience and it has been done just on the "fency whims of some interested person". According to the petitioners, village Sihal, where Circle Office is proposed to be shifted, is in the interior of Fatehpur Tehsil having no facilities, in the absence of which the staff of the Circle Office and the public visiting the Circle Office for attending to their needs and problems will face great hardship. There is also no pucca link road between Jawali and Sihal There is also no suitable accommodation available at Sihal for housing the Circle Office as well as its employees, it is also pointed out that the people of Jawali are agitated on the proposed shifting of the Circle Office from Jawali to Sihal and are sitting in Dharnas in front of the present Circle Office at Jawali and if the proposal materialises, there is great apprehension of disturbance of peace and law and order, in this view of the matter, the working of Shahnehar Project will also suffer badly, which will be against the interest of the State. Therefore, it is alleged that the proposed shifting of Circle Office from Jawali to Sihal! is actuated mala fide as well as extraneous reasons and is colourable exercise of powers. Therefore, it is alleged that the proposed shifting of Circle Office from Jawali to Sihal! is actuated mala fide as well as extraneous reasons and is colourable exercise of powers. Lastly, it is alleged that in the absence of any notification of the State Government either to rename the Circle Office from Shahnehar Project Circle with Headquarter at Jawali to Superintending Engineer Office Shahnehar Project, Fatehpur at Sihal or shifting of Circle Office from Jawali to Sihal, the action of the Government is wrong, illegal and cannot be sustained on judicial review. 5. In their reply filed on the affidavit of Shri S D. Bhatoa, Under Secretary (IPH) to the Government of Himachal! Pradesh, the Respondents have made preliminary submissions besides reply on merits that the writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable as the Headquarter of Shahnehar Project Circle, Jawali has been shifted to Fatehpur and not to Sihal vide notification dated 27th June, 1988 (Annexure RA). It is also stated that the petitioners, who hail from Jawali Tehsil of Kangra District have no locus stand! to file this writ petition as no area in Jawali Tehsil is to be irrigated by Shahnehar Project and its entire area falls in Fatehpur and Indora Tehsils of Kangra District, In view of this, on the basis of administrative and functional considerations Jawali was not at all suitable place for location of Circle Headquarter of Shahnehar Project. Besides shifting the Circle Headquarter of Shahnehar Project the administrative and technical control of Sidhata Project has also been transferred to Shahnehar Project Circle, Fatehpur from IPH Circle, Nurpur vide notification dated 27th June, 1998 (Annexure RA) in respect of which the petitioners have not made any averment in their writ petition. According to the Respondents, the action of the Government is well considered, in public interest and bona fide. Since change of Circle Hearquarter of Shahnehar Project is a policy decision, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The objection of suppressio veri to deliberately suppress and distort the basic facts in respect of location of Sihal and facilities available there has also been taken. 7. On merits, it is stated that Shahnehar Project is the first major irrigation project in Himachal Pradesh catering to two Tehsils, namely, Fatehpur and Indora in District Kangra with a culturable command area of 15287 h.a. and an estimated cost of Rs. 7. On merits, it is stated that Shahnehar Project is the first major irrigation project in Himachal Pradesh catering to two Tehsils, namely, Fatehpur and Indora in District Kangra with a culturable command area of 15287 h.a. and an estimated cost of Rs. 143.32 crores, which will be shared by the Punjab Government to the extent of Rs. 88.49 crores. The entire command area of the project is in Fatehpur and Indora Tehsils and Jawali Tehsil was not at all covered by the project, whereas, the Circle Headquarter was at Jawali. The two Divisions of the Circle at Bhadukar and Sansarpur Terrace are in Fatehpur Tehsil and Dehra Tehsil respectively and each Division has three Sub-Divisions but none of these six Sub-Divisions fall under Jawali Tehsil. Therefore, geographically and functionally there is no justification for the Circle Office to be at Jawali. So far Sidhata Project is concerned, it is an important irrigation project with targetted command area of 3150 h.a. and estimated cost of Rs. 33.62 crores, which no doubt is situated in Tehsii Jawali. 8. The respondents have further stated in the reply that prior to creation of Shahnehar Project Circle at Jawali the location of its Headquarter was changed quite a few times, originally it was at Dharamshala then shifted to Nurpur in April, 1986 when other works of Irrigation and Public Works Department were also assigned to it. The respondents have annexed site plan (Annexure RB) with their reply to show that Jawali is far away from the point where work of Shahnehar Project has been started and by shifting Circle Headquarter to Fatehpur this distance has been reduced to half and two irrigation projects of Shahnehar and Sidhata have come closer to circle office. According to the respondents, the Government took a conscious decision to locate the Circle Headquarter at Fatehpur, which is an ideal location, where besides numerous offices all modern facilities are available. Though the proposal received from the Chief Engineer, I&PH Department was for shifting Circle Headquarter to Fatehpur at Sihal but in view of non-availability of certain facilities at Sihal, the Government took decision to locate the Circle Headquarter at Fatehpur, which is at a distance of 3.5 kms. from Sihal. Though the proposal received from the Chief Engineer, I&PH Department was for shifting Circle Headquarter to Fatehpur at Sihal but in view of non-availability of certain facilities at Sihal, the Government took decision to locate the Circle Headquarter at Fatehpur, which is at a distance of 3.5 kms. from Sihal. As stated by the respondents, Fatehpur has all amenities of Sub-Treasury, Bank, Post Office and STD, as there are branches of State Bank of India and Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Post Office and Telegraph Office. Besides Tehsil and Block Headquarters there are offices of HP PWD (B&R) Division and I&PH and H.P.S.E.B. Sub-Divisions, Office of Divisional Manager of H.P. State Forest Corporation, Office of Soil Conservator, Block Primary Education Officer, etc. etc. Primary Health Centre and Senior Secondary School are also there In view of this, the shifting of Circle Headquarter from Jawali to Fatehpur is in public interest and in administrative convenience and also for better supervision and speedy implementation of the project. Fatehpur is also located on Mukerian—Talwara Highway, whereas, Jawali is located on a side road. Since both the Divisions and six Sub-Divisions of the project continued where they were, shifting of Circle Headquarter, which has only 19 employees, will not cost any locational disadvantage and functional inconvenience. According to the respondents, a small group of people have resorted to some sort of agitation, whereas, some farmers who have their land holdings in the culturable command area, have appreciated the action of the Government by writing letters expressing their gratitude. 9. It is further stated that a regular and frequent bus service is available for Fatehpur, as such, it is easily accessible and no inconvenience will be caused to the general public. In the end, it is explained that the proposal for shifting the Circle Headquarter to Sihal was under consideration of the Government and the tour programme of Honble Chief Minister was issued in advance. However, after considering all pros and cons, the Government took final decision of shifting the Circle Headquarter from Jawali to Fatehpur on 25.6.1998 and inauguration was held on 28.6.1998, wherein it was publically announced that Circle Headquarter has been shifted from Jawali to Fatehpur. It is further stated that the Government will take immediate necessary steps to hire good building at Fatehpur as it had done at Jawali. 10. It is further stated that the Government will take immediate necessary steps to hire good building at Fatehpur as it had done at Jawali. 10. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondents reiterating their allegations made in the writ petition and further supplementing them by the resolutions of different Panchayats of Tehsil Jawali (Annexure P-3 to P-22). It is stated that no policy is involved for shifting the Headquarter from one place to another and it has been done to please B.J.P. M.L.A of Jawali Constituency. It is specifically stated that Sidhata Project, which is situated in Tehsil Jawali and requires constant supervision, as its construction involves high technical skill, will be adversely affected by shifting of Circle Headquarter from Jawali to Fatehpur, which is at a long distance from the command area of this project. 11. On the basis of allegations made in the petition and rejoinder, learned Counsel for the petitioners Pt. Om Prakash, has urged that the decision of the Government to shift the Circle Headquarters from Jawali to Sihal, as stated in the tour programme (Annexure P-2) or even to Fatehpur is mala fide, for extraneous reasons, colourable exercise of powers and not in public interest. The learned Counsel has relied upon the observations in Para 29 of the judgment in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others v. State of U.P and others, (1991) 1 SCC 212, in support of his submission, wherein relying upon their earlier judgments, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have observed that, "...while the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not tramelled by the statute or rule, was held to be wide, it was emphasised as imperative and implicit in Article 14 of the Constitution that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone, irrespective of the field of activity of the State, has long been settled. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone, irrespective of the field of activity of the State, has long been settled. Later decisions of this Court have reinforced the foundation of this tenet and it would be sufficient to refer only to two recent decisions of this Court for this purpose." Those two decisions are in Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293 and Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, (1990) 3 SCC 752. 12. We are j able to appreciate how the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners helps him as the Government in its reply has made out sufficient reasons for taking decision to shift the Circle Headquarters from Jawali to Fatehpur, which is a Tehsil Headquarter where number of Government Offices are situated and all the amenities, such as, Sub-Treasury, Banks, Post Office, Telegraph Office, STD facility, etc. etc. are available. In fact the case initially set up by the petitioners in the writ petition apprehending shifting of Circle Head Quarters from Jawali to Sihal, which according to them is a small village having no amenities, is knocked down as by the notification dated 27.6.1998 (Annexure RA) the shifting of the Circle Headquarters was ordered from Jawali to Fatehpur. Though the petitioners are not able to make out a case that the decision of the Government for shifting Circle Headquarters from Jawali to Fatehpur is either not bona fide or taken for extraneous reasons or in colourable exercise of power, yet we will examine the preliminary objection taken by learned Advocate-General that the shifting of Circle Headquarters is a policy decision, which is not amenable to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In support of his submission, learned-Advocate General has referred to catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, to which we will hereinafter refer to. 13. In support of his submission, learned-Advocate General has referred to catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, to which we will hereinafter refer to. 13. In J.R. Raghupathy and others v. State of A:P. and others, (1988) 4 SCC 364, the learned Judges were dealing with a matter of location of Mandal Headquarters in the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 and the main issue involved was whether location of Mandal Headquarters was a purely Governmental function and, therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? Replying to this in para 17 of the judgment it was held :— "We find it rather difficult to sustain the interference by the High Court in some of the cases with location of Mandal Headquarters and quashing of the impugned notification on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it or that merely because a particular person who was an influential Member of Legislative Assembly belonging to the party in opposition had the right of representation but failed to avail of it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like Gram Panchayats and the general public, keeping in view the relevant factors Even assuming that any breach of the guidelines was justiciable, the utmost that the High Court could have done was to quash the impugned notification in a particular case and direct the Government to reconsider the question. There was no warrant for the High Court to have gone further and directed the shifting of the Mandal Headquarters to a particular place." 14. There was no warrant for the High Court to have gone further and directed the shifting of the Mandal Headquarters to a particular place." 14. In order to deal with the argument addressed on behalf of the petitioners that the action of the Government in the matter of location of Mandal Headquarters amounted to misuse of power for political ends and, therefore, was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and also that the Courts will not only review the proper exercise of discretion but will also intervene to correct excess or abuse of exercise of prerogative powers which can be equated with statutory powers, the learned Judges have referred to a long line of English decisions and came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant an appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution is not subject to the archaic constraints on which prerogative writs were issued in England. They have come to further conclusion that in the ultimate analysis, the present trend of judicial opinion in England on the question as to whether a prerogative power is reviewable or not depends on whether its subject-matter is suitable for judicial control. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it had interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters, the learned Judges concluded that since the guidelines were in the nature of administrative instructions not having any statutory force giving rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners, writ of mandamus could not be issued. 15. In Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti and others v. Union of India and others, (1990) 2 SCC 352, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have held that the question of holding of entrance examination for pre-medical and pre-dental courses in Hindi and regional languages is a matter of policy decision of Government and the Supreme Court is not the forum to adjudicate upon the questions of policy unless such a policy is the direct mandate of the Constitution. It is further observed that :— "It is well settled that judicial review, in order to enforce a fundamental right, is permissible of administrative, legislative and Governmental action or non-action, and that the rights of the citizens of this country are to be judged by the Judiciary and judicial forums and not by the administrators or executives. But it is equally true that citizens of India are not to be governed by the judges or judiciary. If the governance is illegal or violative of rights and obligations, other questions may arise but whether, as mentioned hereinbefore, it has to be a policy decision by the Government or the authority and thereafter enforcement of that policy, the Court should not be, and we hope would not be an appropriate forum for decision.” 16. In G. S. Mahajan and others v. Jalgaon Municipal Council and others, (1991) 3 SCC 91, while answering the contention raised before them that the scheme of financing of the project was not one that was, as a matter of policy, open and permissible to a Governmental authority, the learned Judges have held in paragraph 25:— "The concern of public law is to discipline the public power by forging legal techniques as part of the way in which public power is made operational and part of the process through which it is attempted to render such public power legitimate and to think of issues of legal regulation of public power in a way that goes deeper than particular instances and elaborate issues of genera! principle." There is, however, as Professor Wade points out, ample room, within the legal boundaries for radical differences of opinion in which neither side is unreasonable. In Tameside case Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Metropolitan Borough of fameside 1977 AC 1014 : (1966) 3 All ER 665. Lord Denning pointed out the error of confusing differences of opinion, however strong, with unreasonableness on the part of one side or the other. Lord Diplock said that the very concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred." 17. Lord Diplock said that the very concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred." 17. In B.N. Shankarappa v. Uthanur Srinivas and others, AIR 1992 SC 836, the learned Judges were dealing with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Zila Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, (i) to declare an area as a Mandal, and (ii) to specify its headquarter. Interpreting this provision with the help of Section 14 of the General Clauses Act, it was held that it would be open to the Deputy Commissioner to alter and specify and other place as Mandal Headquarter if the situation so demands and there is justification for altering the place of Headquarter, even if there is no specific provision in this regard in order to avoid vacuum as well as hardship and complications. 18. Further, in English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka and others, (1994) 1 SCC 550, the learned Judges observed that where the State by impugned Government Order desires to bring about academic discipline as a regulatory measure, it is a matter of policy and the State knows how best to implement the language policy. It is not for the Court to interfere. While quoting para 6 of their earlier judgment in Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of India (supra) with approval, the learned Judges have categorically held that in a matter relating to policy the Court should decline to interfere. 19. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, by referring to number of their earner decisions the following principles were deduced in paragraph 94 for exercise of judicial review to examine whether the State decision or action is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution or. not :— "(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in a administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." 20. In Sher Singh and others v. Union of India and others, (1"5) 6 SCC 515, while rejecting the plea raised on behalf of the writ petitioners that there is a parity between the teaching staff and the library staff of Delhi University and at one point of time the Government had allowed the equation of pay-scales between them from 1961 to 11.1973 and thereafter from 1.4.1980 and not with retrospective effect from 1.1.1973, the learned Judges have held that they could not raise "legitimate grievance for the same because the Government has the right to change its policy from time to time, according to the administrative exigencies and demands of the relevant time and the Courts would be slow in interfering with matters of Government policy except where it is shown that the decision is unfair, mala fide or contrary to any statutory directions. There will be no justification for the Court to interfere with the policy of the Government merely on the ground of change in the policy Normally, the Courts will not dictate the decision of the statutory authority in exercise of its discretion and formulation of its policies. There will be no justification for the Court to interfere with the policy of the Government merely on the ground of change in the policy Normally, the Courts will not dictate the decision of the statutory authority in exercise of its discretion and formulation of its policies. The Courts will not direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. The Court can only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising its discretion according to law." (Emphasis supplied) 21. In Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and another, (1996) 9 SCC 709, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were examining the order of the Central Government recommending to the State Government, on the basis of the findings of the Committee, the renewal of TISCOs lease for 20 years over a reduced area of 406 hectares. In this context, their Lordships observations are in para 68:— "At this juncture, we think it fit to make a few observations about our general approach to the entire case. This is a case of the type where legal issues are intertwined with those involving determination of policy and a plethora of technical issues. In such a situation, Courts of law have to be very wary and must exercise their jurisdiction with circumspection for they must not transgress into the realm of policy making. Unless the policy is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws. In the present matter, in its impugned judgment, the High Court had directed the Central Government to set up a Committee to analyse the entire gamut of issues thrown up by the present controversy. The Central Government had consequently constituted a Committee comprising high level functionaries drawn from various Governmental/institutional agencies who were equipped to deal with the entire range of technical and long-term considerations involved. This Committee, in reaching its decision, consulted a number of policy documents and approached the issue from a holistic perspective. We have sought to give our opinion on the legal issues that arise for our consideration. From the scheme of the Act it is clear that the Central Government is vested with discretion to determine the policy regarding the grant or renewal of leases. We have sought to give our opinion on the legal issues that arise for our consideration. From the scheme of the Act it is clear that the Central Government is vested with discretion to determine the policy regarding the grant or renewal of leases. On matters affecting policy and those that require technical expertise, we have shown deference to, and followed the recommendations of the Committee which is more qualified to address these issues.” (Emphasis supplied) In the result, the decision of the Central Government was upheld. 22. In Union of India and another v. G, Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463, again after referring to number of earlier decisions of the Supreme: Court, Foreign Courts and the principles enunciated in the books of celebrated Authors on judicial review, the current position of proportionality in administrative law in England and India is summarised in paragraph 31 and suffice it to reproduce sub-para (2) thereof. It is :— "(2) The Court would not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational-in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. The possibility of other tests, including proportionality being brought into English administrative law in future is not ruled out. These are the CCSU, 1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 All ER 935, principles." 23. In Krishan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala and others, (1997) 9 SCC 495, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court while upholding the legality and constitutionality of a Circular issued by the Secretary to the Government of Kerala directing that for distribution of pumpsets under Comprehensive Coconut Development Programme and other similar schemes of the Agriculture Department and in order to streamline the implementation of the schemes specifying specific roles and responsibilities for different agencies involved, M/s. Kerala Agro Industries Corporation (KAICO) and Regional Agro Industries Development Corporation (RAIDCO) would arrange supply of pumpsets in eight northern districts of the State and in the remaining districts, supply will be effected by private dealers along with KAICO and RAIDCO, held in para 36 :— To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for v/which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionally Courts should avoid "embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. Applying the principles enunciated above to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the policy decision of the Government in this case is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and the petitioners and other residents of Jawali do not have any legally protected or personal or individual rights in exercise of which they can ask for a writ of mandamus to direct the Government to continue the Circle Headquarter at Jawali. Further, on the facts and circumstances on record, the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the administrative and policy decision to shift Circle Headquarter from Jawali to Fatehpur is unreasonable, arbitrary, mala fide, taken for extraneous reasons and in colourable exercise of powers to enable us to hold it illegal and unconstitutional. 25. In the end, we may refer to paragraph 14 of a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddi, etc. v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, AIR 1980 SC 1992, wherein it is held that one basic principle which must guide the Court in arriving at its determination on the question whether the action of the Government is reasonable and in public interest is that, "there is always a presumption that the Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by proper and adequate material. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by proper and adequate material. The Court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or without public interest because, as we said above, there are a large number of policy considerations which must necessarily weigh with the Government in taking action and therefore the Court would not strike down Governmental action as invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied that the action is unreasonable or not in public interest. But where it is so satisfied, it would be the plainest duty of the Court under the Constitution to invalidate the Governmental action. This is one of the most important functions of the Court and also one of the most essential for preservation of the rule of law." 26. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is rejected. There is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.