Judgment 1. This matter has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Long arguments had been addressed that the Court should issue notice to the respondents for the purposes of commissioning the Sugar Mills in the State of Bihar. This is in reference to the Sugar Mills which are lying closed. The contention is that ways and means should be found by the High Court to put the Sugar Factories into production. 2. The Court has received a long lecture on the state of economy in Bihar and it has also been submitted that there can be no political democracy without economic democracy and that the High Court is obliged to discharge its functions to ensure the running of the industry. The contention is that there are workers of the closed sugar mills who are out of employment. It is also contended that by the very nature of a reserved area attached to sugar factories the cane growers are obliged to grow sugarcane as the area is assigned to a sugar factory and they may not sell sugarcane from any assigned area to any one else except the sugar factory to which the area is reserved. In the petition it is also contended that revival of the sick sugar factories is essential because of the forseeable creation of new State of Jharkhand may worsen the economic condition of the remaining area of Bihar. 3. The Court has reservations whether the petitioners may have a locus standi to present this writ petition as a public interest litigation. The Court has no hesitation in placing on record that it cannot substitute itself to carry out any obligation which the Government may have to discharge, as a consequence of the failure or the success of State planning on which counsel for the petitioners has addressed the Court as a critic of the politics of the State or the state of the ecomony. The problems which have been indicated to the High Court either on the petition or on the submissions are clearly the functions of the elected representatives. The petitioners counsel submits criticism about them, but the High Court shall refrain comments. 4. The High Court cannot run the administratation and if the sugar mills have ceased production, whatever may have been the reason, this cannot be attributed to the High Court. The petitioners counsel submits criticism about them, but the High Court shall refrain comments. 4. The High Court cannot run the administratation and if the sugar mills have ceased production, whatever may have been the reason, this cannot be attributed to the High Court. The failure or success of State plans and policies are not for debates at the High Court. Only the illegalities come on the anvil for judicial scrutiny. 5. If truly the persons who may have been aggrieved are the workers who are out of employment because the sugar factories do not work and the cane growers whose cultivation is assigned to the sugar factories, which do not produce sugar, then, perhaps they may be the persons given an occasion, to present a petition. 6. This petition must be laid to rest. Dismissed.