Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise from a common judgment of the learned Single judge dated 29. 11. 2. 004. ( 2 ) THE appeals have been filed by the UP Samaj Cooperative House building Society Limited which is aggrieved by the rejection of its prayer seeking modification of the layout plan to provide for only parks in the area in question where the permissible user included a nursery school. ( 3 ) THE factual matrix is not in dispute and the claim of the petitioner is based on the direction issued in an earlier writ petition filed by it being Writ petition (Civil) No. 7602/2002 which was disposed of vide the order dated 27. 11. 2002. In terms of the order, the petitioner was permitted to make an application supported by documents for making the claim that the layout plan should be changed. ( 4 ) IT has to be noticed that insofar as the Delhi Development Authority act, 1957 is concerned, only the Master Plan and the Zonal Development plan have statutory force under Section HA of the said Act. A layout plan can be modified under the directions of the Vice Chairman, DDA. Over this legal proposition there is no dispute. ( 5 ) ON the direction being issued, the communication dated 4. 1. 2002 was received that the matter was being considered by the authority as a policy. Thereafter, a Resolution No. 5/2002 was passed for utilisation of sites earmarked for approved layout plans in the following terms: "resolution proposals contained in the agenda item were approved by the Authority subject to the following provisions:- (a) Nursery school plots should be allowed upgradation to the primary school leve if they qualify the rules and regulations of the Directorate of Education. (b) Nursery school sites shall be allowed to be converted to green/parks only if the plots were "internal to the colonies" and not on the periphery. (c) Such plots which were internal to the colony and sandwiched between the residential plots should be converted to residential land use only, rather than to greens/parks in order to avoid possible encroachment. (ii) Decisions taken on this agenda would not affect the allotments already made. " ( 6 ) THE decision was taken by the Director (Lands) on 20. 2. 2003. The request of the petitioner was not accepted. (ii) Decisions taken on this agenda would not affect the allotments already made. " ( 6 ) THE decision was taken by the Director (Lands) on 20. 2. 2003. The request of the petitioner was not accepted. It was noticed that the layout plan of the area was prepared by the society itself with provisions for facilities like park, community hall, nursery school etc. as per the provisions of the Master Plan and the claim of society that they had converted the nursery school site into park was prima facie found to be not corect. The allotment had been made in favour of other societies in May, 2002 and even the possession of the land had been handed over. At the time of handing over, there was no park on the land. It was thus found that the petitioner society had tried to convert the nursery school into a park after handing over of the site by the DDA and put up a board of park in the said land. ( 7 ) THE sole submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the Resolution No. 5/2002 has not been considered by the Director (Lands) while passing the order dated 20. 2. 2003 and thus the said decision is not correct and the matter ought to be remanded for reconsideration. ( 8 ) IN support of the aforesaid plea, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. v. Company Law Board and Ors. , AIR 1967 SC 295 dealing with the issue of formation of opinion of the Central Government within the provisions of section 237 (b) of the Companies Act, 1956. It was held that if it is shown that circumstances do not exist or that they are such that it is impossible for anyone to form an opinion therefrom, the opinion is challengeable on the ground of non-application of mind or perversity or on the ground that it was formed on collateral grounds and was beyond the powers in the statute. A reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. P. Poulose v. State of Kerala and Anr. , AIR 1975 SC 1259 where the concept of misconduct of setting aside of an award made unde the Arbitration Act, 1940 is discussed. A reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. P. Poulose v. State of Kerala and Anr. , AIR 1975 SC 1259 where the concept of misconduct of setting aside of an award made unde the Arbitration Act, 1940 is discussed. It was held that material documents could not be ignored to resolve the controversy and that would amount to misconduct. ( 9 ) IN our considered view, the aforesaid judgments would have no application to the facts of the case since admittedly the permissible user of the land is a nursery school. It is the petitioner who is seeking the change of that user. The policy decision No. 5/2002 nowhere mandates that a change must take place. It is also not disputed that the said policy decision was with the authority taking decision and in fact had been produced before the authority. ( 10 ) AN administrative authority does not act as a judicial authority and is not required to pass an order which is satisfying all the parameters of a judicial order. The respondent authority cannot be compelled to change the land use. ( 11 ) THE learned Single Judge while considering these issues has rightly noted that it is not a case where third party interest has been created for consideration. ( 12 ) THE parameters for judicial scrutiny of the administrative decision must be followed and this Court is not required to substitute its own opinion with that of the administrative authority. ( 13 ) IN this behalf, a reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 which dealt with the issue of the scope of judicial review in matters of contract. The supreme Court referred to the Wednesbury Principle enunciated in the associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury corporation, (1947) 2 ALL ER 680, which is as under:- wednesbury principle : A decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where the court concludes that the decision is such that no authority property directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it. " the Supreme Court, thus, concluded in para 94 that the Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. It is not the function of the Court of substitute its own decision with that of the administrative body unless no reasonable person/authority coudl come to the said conclusion. ( 14 ) IN our considered view, the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. ( 15 ) DISMISSED. CM No. 588 in LPA No. 44/2005 cm No. 588 in LPA No. 45/2005 cm No. 588 in LPA No. 46/2005 cm No. 588 in LPA No. 47/2005 dismissed. .