This writ petition was brought by the petitioners on behalf of the 2 Associations, viz the Nagaland Armed Police Wireless Staff Association (NAPWSA in short) and the Nagaland Police Radio Staff Association (NPRSA in short) represented by their respective Presidents wherein the impugned orders dated 4.9.2000,12.9.20000 and 21.10.2000 were challenged. 2. The case in brief is that by notification No. POL-16PR/8/83 dated 20.7.95, the Nagaland Police Radio Organisation and the Nagaland Armed Police Wireless were amalgamated and the same known as Nagaland Police Telecommunication Organisation. The said notification reads as follows : "The Governor of Nagaland is pleased to amalgamate the Nagaland Police Radio Organisation and the Nagaland Armed Police Wireless under the following terms and conditions : (a) The reorganised set up of the Nagaland Police signal may be called as 'Nagaland Police Telecommunication Organisation'. (b) Personnel of the Nagaland Police Technical Organisation use NPR for shoulder and Cap badge. (c) The SP, Wireless will work directly under the control of the DGP, Nagaland and that in the amalgamation, Nagaland Police Telecommunication Organisation, the staff of Police Radio and NAP wireless operators trained for the job will be pooled together under the administrative control of the SP (Wireless) but the operation control of the NAP wireless operation will remain with the Unit Commanders. (d) All the newly created posts will be filled by the existing staff and inter se-seniority list of staff both Police Radio and NAP Wireless will be prepared properly and finalised by the Director General of Police before effecting re-organisation." Consequent to the aforesaid amalgamation, the office memorandum dated 29 June, 1996 was issued giving necessary instructions for fixation of inter se seniority and other facilities regarding the two organisations who were amalgamated by the said notification. Since the amalgamation the Nagaland Police d Radio Organisation and the Nagaland Armed Police Wireless had ceased to exist and the same were known by the Nagaland Police Telecommunication Organisation (NPTO in short). According to the said notification after the amalgamation NPTO has been put under charge of the SP (Wireless) who will directly under the control of Director General of Police (DGP in short), Nagaland. 3. According to the said notification after the amalgamation NPTO has been put under charge of the SP (Wireless) who will directly under the control of Director General of Police (DGP in short), Nagaland. 3. After the said amalgamation under the NPTO the Govt realised that the NPTO having been well organised organisation thought it proper to bifurcate the same from being directly under the administrative control of DGP, Nagaland and a proposal was accordingly made to bifurcate the NPTO from the establishment of the DGP and to put the same under the administrative control of the Home Department and to allot a separate budget under a separate Head of Account for this purpose. Accordingly the Cabinet Memorandum dated 21.2.97, Annexure F to the writ petition was made proposing to bifurcate the NPTO from the establishment of the DGP and to put it under direct control of the Home Department. Pursuant to the said Cabinet Memorandum a notification dated 3.6.1997, Annexure G to the writ petition was published bifurcating the NPTO from the establishment of the DGP (PHQ). A copy of the notification No. POL/G- l/Bud/2/95 dated 3.6.97 is reproduced below : "The Governor of Nagaland is pleased to order bifurcation of the Nagaland Police Telecommunication Organisation (as amalgamated vide Notification No. POL. 16/PR/8/83 dated 20.7.1995) from the establishment of the Director General of Police to act as a separate establishment i.e Head of office under the direct administrative control of Home Department. The bifurcation shall be further subject to the following conditions: (i) The Finance Department shall allot a separate Head of Account and allot separate funds independent of the budget allotted to Police Department with effect from the financial year 1997-98. (ii) The Director General of Police, Nagaland shall continue to have operational control over the NPTO and to the extent the DIG (Wireless) shall be subordinate to him. (iii) The process of amalgamation as ordered vide No. POL- 16/PR/8/83, dated 20.7.95 if complete in any respect shall now be taken over by the DIG (Wireless) and complete it with without further delay, 2, This supersedes the Notification of even number dated 21.3.91." Since the time of the said notification was issued, the NPTO has been under the direct control of the Home Department. However, later on the Govt realised that the. However, later on the Govt realised that the. bifurcation of the NPTO from the PHQ under the DGP, Nagaland and placing it under the control of Home Department does not serve the interest of the force inasmuch as the prevailing law and order situation and communication system in the State requires that the NPTO should be under the direct control of the DGP and the same has to be amalgamated with the PHQ. Pursuant to this objective a Cabinet Memorandum as per Annexure 1 to the affidavit-in-opposition was submitted proposing to reamalgamate the Police Wireless with the Police Department (PHQ). Accordingly on the basis of the said Cabinet Memorandum a policy decision was taken by the Govt for re-amalgamation of the NPTO with the Police Department (PHQ). A notification No. POL/G-l/Bud/2/95/Pt-II dated 4.9.2000 was issued directing re-amalgamation of the NPTO with the Police Department (PHQ). Relevant portion of the notification pertaining to this reamalgamation is reproduce below: "Therefore, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to order that the Nagaland Police Telecommunication Organisation (Police Wireless) be reamalgamated with the main Police Department with immediate effect bringing it under the direct control of the Director General of Police, Nagaland, who shall be the Head of the Department for all purposes. It is further ordered that the Wireless personnel presently posted to the Nagaland Armed Police Battalions shall form Signal Platoons of such Battalions as were prior to 3.6.97 and shall be under the command and control of the respective Commandants. The Director General of Police, Nagaland shall make necessary arrange­ment for transfer of funds for payment of the salary and allowances of such Wireless personnel posted against the Signal Platoons in their respective units who shall also be entitled to all benefits enjoyed by the NAP personnel including free ration. However such personnel shall be transferable to non NAP Wireless Stations and vice- versa as the Wireless personnel shall continue to have a separate cadre of their own. This supersedes the earlier notification No. POL/G-l/Bud/2/95 dated 3.6.97." Following the said notification the subsequent orders dated 12.9.2000 and 21.10.2000 were issued whereby the service conditions of the employees of the NPTO shall be followed after the said amalgamation. Against the said reamalgamation order dated 4.9.2000 and the subsequent orders, the petitioners' Association have approached this Court by this petition. 4. Against the said reamalgamation order dated 4.9.2000 and the subsequent orders, the petitioners' Association have approached this Court by this petition. 4. The respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that the actions taken by the Govt in re-amalgamation of the NPTO with the Police Department (PHQ) was done according to the policy decision of the Govt of Nagaland and for the interest of public service, for the problems which arose at the relevant time which compelled the Govt to examine the question of re­ar amalgamation of the Wireless Organisation with the PHQ, particularly when the Police Wireless Organisation is especially required to assist the State Police in dealing with the law and order problems. Respondents have also contended in their affidavit-in-opposition that after the notification dated 20.7.95 when the NAPW and the NPRO were amalgamated there was only one Police Organisation in the State and that is the NPTO and the 2 organisations has eased to exist. Therefore, after the said notification dated 20th July, 1995, the only existing Wireless Organisation is NPTO and the said amalgamation of the NAPW and NPRO is still exists till date. The respondents also have challenged the locus standi of the petitioners Association to approach this court as according to the respondents the said petitioners' Association were not recognised by the respondents. 5. Heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned counsel for the petitioners Association and learned Govt Advocate on behalf of the State respondents. Heard also Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even after the amalgamation of the NAPW and NPRO the petitioners Association still continue to exist and are still looking after the interest of the members of their respective Association. According to the learned counsel, by the notification dated 20th July, 1995, the personnel of the NAPW were given a special category whereby they were allowed to use NPR for shoulder and Cap Badges which is quite distinct from the regular Nagaland Police. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that by the notification dated 3.6.97, the NPTO has been bifurcated from the Police Department and it was placed under the direct control of the Home Department which also shows that the NPTO is not required to be under the establishment or direct control of the PHQ. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that by the notification dated 3.6.97, the NPTO has been bifurcated from the Police Department and it was placed under the direct control of the Home Department which also shows that the NPTO is not required to be under the establishment or direct control of the PHQ. Therefore, by the impugned order, the members of the petitioners Association have been greatly affected by reamalgamating them with the PHQ. 7. The learned counsel for the State-respondents on the other hand contends that the petitioners Association being not a recognized Associations have no right to approach this Court in order to challenge the impugned orders. Learned Govt Advocate further contends that the reamalgamation of the NPTO with the Police Department is purely a policy decision of the State Govt as was done in the earlier two occasions vide notification dated 20th July, 1995 and 3rd June, 1997. The petitioners Association therefore, have no right to challenge this policy decision of the respondents as their welfare have already been looked into by the respondents and their service conditions, seniority etc has been fully protected, contends learned Govt Advocate. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the relevant records/documents, it is clear that after the said notification dated 20th July, 1995 was issued whereby the NAPW and NPRO were amalgamated under one organisation viz the NPTO and since then the two organisations were abolished by the State Govt and the only Wireless Organisation under the State Govt is the NPTO. In the subsequent notification dated 3rd June, 1997 and 4th September, 2000 also, only the NPTO is recognised as the Police Wireless Organisation in the State. The question to be decided is therefore, whether the decision taken by a the State Govt in issuing the impugned notification dated 4.9.2000 was done according to the policy decision of the State Govt and whether the same is subject to judicial review. The Apex Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 has laid down the criteria for the exercise of the judicial review as follows: "The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law. 3. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law. 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice. 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. Abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality: This means the decision mater must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness, (iii) Procedural impropriety." 9, Similarly m Manshukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujrat reported in (1997) 7 SGC 622, the Apex Court has followed the Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (supra) wherein it was observed that in judicial decision a Cert. is to confine itself to the legality of the decision and held as under : "This principle was reiterated in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India in which it was, inter alia, laid down that the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made particularly as 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 which itself may be fallible. The Court pointed out that the duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be : 1. Whether a decision making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of Jaw 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice; 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached; or 5. Abused its powers." 10. Its concern should be : 1. Whether a decision making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of Jaw 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice; 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached; or 5. Abused its powers." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners Association draws my attention to the decision of this Court rendered in Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & others vs. Union of India & others reported in 1998 (3) GLT 56 (1998 (3) GLJ 46) whereby it was held that "in order to make a policy decision, some amount of discretion is necessary and the competent authority must apply its mind and give, seal of approval to the policy. A policy cannot be formulated by anybody and everybody." Coming to the instant case, the said decision of this Court is not applicable in the instant case, inasmuch as, prior to the issue of the said notification dated 4.9.2000 a High Power Committee consisting of the Home Commissioner as Chairman, Home Secretary (Police) as Member Secretary and DGP, Headquarters, DIGP, Wireless and officers from the Finance Department as Members was constituted. On the recommendation of the said High Power Committee a Cabinet Memorandum was submitted to the Govt and that only thereafter the impugned notification was issued reamalgamating the NPTO with the PHQ. Moreover in the said case Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & others vs. Union of India & others (supra) the case relates to the distribution of Atta to Fair Price Shop under the PDS in the State of Assam which relates to the interest of the public at large and which affect the consumer particularly, the poor section of the population Whereas in the instant case, the person affected were only the members of the petitioners Association. In any case the members of the petitioners Association are not suffering any personnel grievances as none of them approached this Court to redress their grievances. More so, from" the action of the respondents as shall be related herein will show that proper care , has been taken to safeguard the interest of the members of the petitioners Association. Firstly, soon after the reamalgamation both the petitioners Association submitted representation dated 6.9.2000 and accordingly the respondent convene a meeting of the respondent along with the representatives of the petitioners Association. Firstly, soon after the reamalgamation both the petitioners Association submitted representation dated 6.9.2000 and accordingly the respondent convene a meeting of the respondent along with the representatives of the petitioners Association. In the said meeting, the grievances of the petitioners Association were discussed, in presence of both the Presidents of the petitioners Association who are the same persons to file this writ petition. Secondly, the minutes of the said meeting was sent to the DGP by letter dated 30.9.2000, Annexure V to the writ petition by the Govt with the direction to take appropriate action to redress the grievances of the petitioners Association. Thirdly, the petitioners submitted another representation dated 21.9.2000 consequent to which a meeting was again held on 18.10.2000 to discuss the grievances raised by the petitioners Association and following the said meeting a letter dated 20.10.2000 was sent by the IGP (PHQ) to the Home Commissioner, Nagaland requesting him for necessary action on the basis of the said resolution to redress the grievances of the petitioners Association. 11. From the above it is seen that the petitioners would not be affected in any manner. 12. In view of the above facts as discussed above, I am of the view that the policy decision taken by the respondents in issuing the impugned orders was not done in excess of the powers or without jurisdiction, but the same fells squarely within the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India & others (supra) and in Manshukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujrat (supra). 13. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Association is that the petitioners Association although not recognised, but the petitioner No. 1 is a registered Association under the Societies Registration Act, but the petitioner No. 2 was not a registered organisation. Even then, the Associations have every right to file the instant petition as it represents the interest of their members. In support of this contention^ learned counsel for the petitioners Association draws a my attention to the case reported in AIR 1981 SC 298 , ABSK Sangh vs. Union of India & others whereby the Apex Court held that : Whether the petitioners belong to a recognised union or not, the feet remains that a large body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached this Court under Article 32. Our current processual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo Indian mould. It is broad-based and people oriented, and envisions access to justice through 'class actions', 'public interest litigation', and 'representative proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in Courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved' and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions, ft must fairly be stated that the learned Attorney General has taken no objection to a non-recognised Association maintaining the writ petitions." The learned Govt Advocate on the other hand contends that the petitioners Association are un-recognised and self proclaimed Associations of the Wireless Staffin which few members do not even represent 20% of the strength of Wireless Staff. In other words, learned Govt Advocate contends that the petitioners Association are not representing the other remaining 80% of the staff of the Wireless Organisation who do not have any objection to the said amalgamation. The learned Govt Advocate further contends that the said petitioners Association cannot represent the members of the NAPW and NPRO who were already amalgamated by notification dated 20.7.95 and has become one organisation viz, the NPTO. There was also no Objection whatsoever by the members of the NPTO to the present reamalgamation vide notification dated 4.9.2000. 14. Upon consideration of the above facts and circumstances as enumerated above, I am of the view that the petitioners Association have no right to approach this Court as the said NAPW and NPRO have ceased to exist since 20.7.95. There was also no representation from any members of the NPTO. So also the case cited by the counsel in ABSK Sangh (Rly) vs. Union of India (supra) relates to a large number of persons whereas the instant case, the petitioners Association relates to only a few members of the Wireless Organisation of the Nagaland State. They are not large persons as such. Moreover, as discussed above, the representations of the petitioners Association were wholly considered by the respondents to which the petitioners herein are also a party to the meetings held by the respondents to redress their grievances after the reamalgamation. They are not large persons as such. Moreover, as discussed above, the representations of the petitioners Association were wholly considered by the respondents to which the petitioners herein are also a party to the meetings held by the respondents to redress their grievances after the reamalgamation. Considering the above facts and circumstances, as discussed herein above, I am of the view that the instant writ petition filed by the writ petitioners is not maintainable, inasmuch as, there is no specific circumstances of any grievance of any particular member of the Association. It is only a general observation made by the writ petitioners. The petition is therefore devoid of merit and accordingly it is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.