Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.97 (Anriexure-4), passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner has been directed to refund the sum of Rs. 2,17,575.00 , being the first instalment of the amount which had been given to it for doing certain medical jobs in the field of family planning. The amount has been directed to be refunded on account of poor performance of the petitioner. 2. The rapid growth of population in the country has caused great concern to the Government of India. It has become necessary to control this growth to save posterity from facing innumerable problems of inadequate livelihood quality of life and environment. Government of India felt that the massive health and family welfare infrastructure created in the country is inadequate to meet full demand of the people. Government of India felt that involvement in this effort of non Governmental organizations would be of immense help. Therefore, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, formulated a scheme for encouraging spacing method and sterilization with a view to control birth rate in the country through non-Governmental organizations which is stated in its scheme dated 31.5.93 (Annexure-8). The petitioner is one such non-Governmental organisation engaged in social welfare including propagation and application of family planning methods. The district officials forwarded the petitioners case to the respondent -authorities recommending that the petitioner may be entrusted with a job under the aforesaid scheme (Annexure-8) in Shekhaxpurnakhand and Adityapur Panchayats of Lalganj Block, district Vaishali. The respondent authorities agreed to the proposal of the district authorities and accordingly the work of the application of spacing method and sterilisation was entrusted to the petitioner in the aforesaid area, vide letter dated 16.8.95 (Annexure-10), on the terms and conditions stated therein. It, inter alia, stated that a total sum of Rs. 2,17,575.00 was sanctioned and was payable in two six monthly intalments. The first instalment of half of the amount was to be released at the inception, and the balance half was to be released on assessment of the performance of the work done by the petitioner and production of the documents mentioned therein. This was followed by an agreement with the parties dated 28.12.95 (Annexure-11). The first instalment of half of the amount was to be released at the inception, and the balance half was to be released on assessment of the performance of the work done by the petitioner and production of the documents mentioned therein. This was followed by an agreement with the parties dated 28.12.95 (Annexure-11). In view of the adverse reports against the petitioner about its poor performance and failure to achieve the target, the respondent authorities have passed the impugned order dated 10.11.97 (Annexure-44) whereby the petitioner has been directed to refund the said sum of Rs. 2,17,575.00 per demand draft. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not complete the work because the State Government failed to supply to them the various materials required in this connection. Learned Counsel has invited my attention to letters sent by the petitioner to the various functionaries of the Bihar Government marked Annexures 12, 13, 14, 14-A, 14-B etc. to the writ petition. I am unable to accede to the contention for the reason that it is manifest from a plain reading of the aforesaid letter dated 16.8.95 (Annexure-10), as well as the agreement inter-parties (Annexure-11), that it was no part of the duty of the respondent authorities to supply any one of the materials. Learned Counsel for the respondents rightly submitted that the money was after all meant to meet the expenses of actual purchase of such items and the cost of distribution, sterilisation etc. He is further right in his submission that all these letters are addressed to the State Government, none of them were for-warded to the respondent authorities and, therefore, they were never aware of this aspect of the matter. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the petitioner has after all registered satisfactory performance and has invited my attention to the letter dated 2.1.97 (Annexure-22). He has also" invited my attention to the progress reports for the period 1.7.96 to 31.12.96 (Annexure 23). 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the petitioner has after all registered satisfactory performance and has invited my attention to the letter dated 2.1.97 (Annexure-22). He has also" invited my attention to the progress reports for the period 1.7.96 to 31.12.96 (Annexure 23). Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that these reports had to be submitted to the department of Family Welfare after counter-signature of the Medical Officer Incharge of the P.H.C. or the C.M.O. as per Clause (8) of the aforesaid scheme (Annexure-8), He is, therefore, right in his submission that the aforesaid progress reports submitted by the petitioner vide Annexures 22 and 23 were not counter signed by the Medical Officer Incharge of the P.H.C. or the C.M.O., which leads to the conclusion that the progress reports are not authentic and are self serving documents. It is, therefore, not possible to place reliance on the same. Learned Counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the contents of paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit wherein details about the gross short fall in the performance of the petitioner has been indicated. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the counter-affidavit are set out here in below for the facility of quick reference: 6. That it is stated that Aulia Adhyatmic Anusandhan Kendra Aulia Darbar Pauni Hassanpur, Vaishali, Bihar was sanctioned a project vide Ministry of Health and Family Welfares letter No. W. 11024/24/94-VOP (SCOVA-III) on 10th August, 1995 for implementing a project under the Spacing Methods and Sterilisation Scheme with the following particulars: Project area : Rural Lalganj, Prakhand Purant and Permanendpur, Vaishali, Bihar. Target to be Achieved : 3000 eligible, couples with the following breakup: (a) distribution of (i) C.C. 500 (ii) OP. 500 (b) motivation through (i) M.T.P.) (ii)I.U.D.) 1500 (iii) Sterilisation 500 Total cost: Rs. 4,71,500/- out of which 10% was to be borne by the NGO and the remaining is the Government grant. * * * * 8. That it is Stated that thereafter the performance report of Non-Government Organisation (petitioner) received for the work done by them for the first six months received in the Ministry was not duly certified by the Chief Medical Officer of the District and accordingly a duly certified report was called for from the petitioner, but yet they failed to submit the same. In the meantime, the Center for Socio Economic Research and Applied Technology, New Delhi, evaluating Agency, sent its report on the performance of the petitioner-organisation for the first six months. The same reflected an overall performance rate of 28.7%. The performance rate in Sterilisation was only 6% and in insertion of IUG/Copper T was Nil. Accordingly, the Non-Government Organisation (Petitioner-organisation) was informed vide Ministry letter No. W 11024/24/94-VOP (SCOVA-III) dated 10.11.1997 about the poor performance of the Non-Government Organisation (Petitioner) for the above-mentioned fields and to refund the amount already released to the petitioner. I, therefore, reject the petitioners contention that it had registered satisfactory progress about its performance. 5 Learned Counsel for the respondents is further right in his submission that the impugned order is basically-an administrative order and, therefore, normally immune from judicial review (sic) unless it is actuated by mala fides or afflicted by arbitrariness or such other recognised grounds which are really by way of exceptions. I am in this connection reminded of the classic judgment of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions V/s. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935. Expanding the enunciation of law by Lord Green in Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd. V/s. Wednesbury Corporation (1947) 2 All ER 680, Lord Diplock in his speech held that administrative action is subject to Courts by judicial review under three heads : (1) illegality, where the decision making authority has been guilty of an error of law, e.g. by purporting to exercise a power it does not possess; (2) irrationality, where the decision-making authority has acted so unreasonably that no reasonable authority would have made the decision; and (3) procedural impropriety, where the decision-making authority has failed in its duty to act fairly. No such case has been made out by the petitioner. This Court is convinced that the respondent authorities have taken into account all the relevant materials and come to a reasonable conclusion that the petitioner fell far short of the expected performance and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted. 6. In the result this writ petition is dismissed.