JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—The writ petition is made by a Group of Journalists alleging that the concerned authority of the Varanasi Development Authority illegally and arbitrarily rejected their applications for allocation of plots under Patrakar Puram Awasiya Yojna. The petitioners applied as per the advertisement to get allocation of 200 sq. meters of plots each. According to the petitioners, no guideline was issued as regards eligibility or ineligibility of a journalist on a particular ground. However, petitioners have come to know about eligibility criteria from an affidavit filed by the respondents in the earlier occasion. The petitioners have contended that large number of persons, who are not working in the newspapers got allocation of plots. On the other hand genuine and desirable persons were excluded. No lottery was made for allocation of such plots. It was done on the pick and choose basis. Number of plots are more than number of candidates. As such there is no occasion to exclude the petitioners. Decision of the respondent authority is totally biased since private person/s being member/s of the other Journalist Association was party to the committee. Their members are also applicants. Therefore, they cannot be the party to the decision making process following the principle that no body is Judge of his own cause. The definition of working journalist as available under Section 2 (8-F) of the Working Journalist Act and Other Newspapers Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 were not followed. 2. Respondents contended that the petitioners cannot be entitled for allotment of plots in their favour for various grounds. It is incorrect to say that number of applicants is less than the number of plots. Factually, number of applicants is more than the number of plots. As a result whereof short listing was obvious, which is otherwise permissible under the law. Therefore, at the time of short listing if the candidates are excluded finding ineligible on various grounds, the authorities cannot be blamed. The authority made out individual cases in respect of rejecting claim of six petitioners filed this writ petition. According to them, the criteria for rejecting their applications based on informations received from the Director of Information, State of Uttar Pradesh. The authority made out individual cases in respect of rejecting claim of six petitioners filed this writ petition. According to them, the criteria for rejecting their applications based on informations received from the Director of Information, State of Uttar Pradesh. From the advertisement dated 16th March, 2002 we find the only eligibility criteria made therein is that application will be made by the Journalists brothers of the District Varanasi, on the prescribed format, whose family (husband, wife and minor children) does not own any land or building in any colony in District Varanasi developed by the authority, Awas Vikas Parishad or any local body. The allotment of plots will be made through lottery and allotment committee would be made. The policy of the eligibility of any person being a Journalist and certificate shall be examined by the allotment committee and will submit its report to the Vice Chairman, whose decision will be final. The number of plots is 43 having area of 200 sq. meters. Number of plots is 73 having area of 153 sq. meters. Number of plots is 88 having an area of 75 sq. meters. After receiving applications on 9th August, 2002 and after comprehensive discussion with Kashi Patrakar Sangh and Uttar Pradesh Journalist Association and Assistant Director, Information at the level of the authority following points have been carved out for determining the criteria of eligibility for allotment : (1) Journalist accredited by the District Headquarter of Information Department, Varanasi. (2) Such working Journalist/the Journalist of Electronic Media/ Photographers who are permanent resident of Varanasi and are working in Varanasi or they have attained the age of superannuation. (3) (A) Such working journalists who are permanent resident of Varanasi who are posted on deputation in other district after having worked at the Headquarters of newspapers published from Varanasi. (B) Editor of the Newspapers as well as such editors who are publishers also. (C) Such Journalists who are not permanent resident of Varanasi and have come from outside districts and are working for at least one in Varanasi. (4) (A) Only one member of a family will be allotted plots. The family means-husband wife- father son and mother son. (B) Persons working in one newspaper of the same family only one member will get the benefit of this scheme. (4) (A) Only one member of a family will be allotted plots. The family means-husband wife- father son and mother son. (B) Persons working in one newspaper of the same family only one member will get the benefit of this scheme. (5) This scheme is without the financial help from the State Government and is also for handing over plots without any development. (6) In the opinion of the Journalist organization that there should be a rule for prohibition on transfer and sale of the plots for the beneficiary of this scheme. It was decided to impose a ban of 20 years as such but the same would not apply to transfer for the members of the family (blood relations). It was further decided that considering the aforesaid eligibly that the Journalist Organization shall prepare a list of eligible journalists which will be verified by Assistant Director, Information and thereafter the same will be sent to the Authority. 3. After following the aforesaid criteria a list of 204 candidates was prepared out of 290 candidates. Such list was pasted on the notice board of the office to draw lottery. By the lottery plots were allotted. But allotment letters of 11 plots were not issued in view of the direction of the Court in Writ Petition No. 38367 of 2003 being dated 4th September, 2003 for consideration. 4. According to the respondents, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers and sons of one Sri Amar Nath Singh. Such Amar Nath Singh was given allotment of plot. Therefore, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 become ineligible. Petitioner No. 3 is a Journalist of Nav Bharat Times and is posted at Bombay from 1987. He never worked in Varanasi. Therefore, he become ineligible too. Petitioner No. 4 is a politician but not a Journalist. Petitioner No. 5 lives in Bombay and before that he lived in Lucknow. He left Lucknow in the year 1991. Petitioner No. 6 is owner of the registered Guest House and got such property by family partition and is living therein. He is not working as Journalist. 5. Petitioners made an amendment to the writ petition. They contended that the definition of working Journalists has not been followed in this case. The petitioners specifically stated that one Sri Shailesh Chaurasia, Sri Umesh Gupta, Smt. Jyotsna, Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Ms. He is not working as Journalist. 5. Petitioners made an amendment to the writ petition. They contended that the definition of working Journalists has not been followed in this case. The petitioners specifically stated that one Sri Shailesh Chaurasia, Sri Umesh Gupta, Smt. Jyotsna, Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Ms. Nikita Srivastava and Sri Manish Chaurasia are the employees of Sri Nainji Cables Pvt. Ltd. Rath Yatra, Varanasi, who provide facilities of cable lines to the consumers. Therefore, they are not the working Journalists. In spite of same plots were allotted to them as working Journalists. One Sri Salim Raza is not working in any newspaper or in electronic media but he was given an allotment. Smt. Savitri Srivastava is a house wife and her son is working as Assistant Clerk in the office of the Assistant Director (Information), Varanasi, hence, she is not connected with any newspaper or electronic media but land has been allotted to her. Sri Hemant Sharma has never been a Journalist in district Varanasi. In spite of same the plot was allotted to him. Sri Hafizur Rehman, Sri Uzair Khan and Mohd. Ismile are not working Journalists but they are staffs of newspaper, but they are defined as Working Journalists and plots of land were allotted to them. Sri Shashidhar Issar is Managing Editor and Printer Publisher of newspaper ‘Gandiv’, therefore, he is not working Journalist but he got the allotment of plot. Sri Dina Nath Dubey never worked as a Journalist in district Varanasi, he got allotment of plot of land. Sri Riyaz Ahmad is a bookseller having his own shop in Dal Mandi, Varanasi and his primary occupation is to run the shop. He is assigned with the work of communicating the reports of the area, where the shop is situated by a newspaper ‘Awaz-e-Mulk’, but he was described as working Journalist and allowed to get the property. Sri Vinod Kumar Bagi, President of Shivpur Vyapar Mandal, is also Manager of Raghav Ram Varma Inter College, Varanasi and he was given allotment of plot. The aforesaid persons have their close proximity with the Uttar Pradesh Journalists Association, which is also a part of decision making body in allotment of plots to the working Journalists. Therefore, they have been deliberately allotted plots knowing very well that they are ineligible for allotment of plots made for working Journalists. The aforesaid persons have their close proximity with the Uttar Pradesh Journalists Association, which is also a part of decision making body in allotment of plots to the working Journalists. Therefore, they have been deliberately allotted plots knowing very well that they are ineligible for allotment of plots made for working Journalists. Representation of the writ petitioners under an order of the Division Bench in the earlier writ petition was considered and rejected. However, this Court has come to know that 11 plots were kept separately. 6. Against this background, we have to consider the various aspects of the matter. But before going into such question we record hereunder that Sri V.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent authority, contended before this Court that if the petitioners agree, they will allot plots of land to the petitioners having an area of 75 sq. meters which are kept separately. The respondents also offered the petitioners before the Court that in case subsequent advertisement is made for allotment of some other plots of land the petitioners’ case will be considered. Then the Court was pleased to call upon the learned Senior Counsel of both the parties to find out a solution if any and kept the delivery of judgment pending but till today we do not find any consensus amongst themselves. 7. According to us, the Writ Court is not the fact finding Court. Therefore, there is no scope of taking any decision in connection with disputed questions of fact. The writ petition could have been thrown out on that score alone, particularly when a decision has been taken by an appropriate authority pursuant to an order of the High Court in the earlier occasion. But we have doubt about propriety of the order. When an eligibility criteria is framed, then the same is to be known to the interested people by way of advertisement so that they can apply on the given eligibility criteria. But if a person made an application on the basis of the given eligibility criteria and at the time of taking decision in the name of short listing a further exhaustive eligibility criteria is introduced internally then the subsequent act will be as good as supplant to the original eligibility criteria as such it will lead to procedural impropriety. For an example definition of family has been changed. For an example definition of family has been changed. In any event, we do not want to go to further detail of the factual dispute for the reasons given below. In further the explanation came out only by way of affidavit. Therefore, the case is not simplicitor disputed question of fact where the Writ Court, normally, does not interfere. Principles of Wednesbury case in re: (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680) is applicable herein. We know our judicial restraint in connection with administrative action. 8. Having so, we feel it expedient that this Court should send the matter back to an authority higher than the authority, who has passed the impugned order, to consider afresh and pass an appropriate departmental order without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the authority concerned. 9. The following principles are followed herein. In 1997 (7) SCC 463 (Union of India v. G.Ganayutham) the Court held that to judge the validity of an administrative order or statutory discretion, normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties or was one which no sensible decision-maker could, on the material before him and within the framework of the law, have arrived at. The Court would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or whether the action was not bona fide. The Court would also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse. In 2003(4) SCC 579 (Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar) the Court held that the judicial review is available provided there is illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Whether the action falls in any of the category has to be established, mere assertions would not have been sufficient. Most of the cases have derived an idea from the case reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 (Tata Cellular v. Union of India). We find the basic principle therein which are as follows : (a) There should be judicial restraint in administrative action. (b) The Writ Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal but refuse the manner in which the decision was taken. We find the basic principle therein which are as follows : (a) There should be judicial restraint in administrative action. (b) The Writ Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal but refuse the manner in which the decision was taken. (c) It does not have expertise to correct the decision, therefore, it is not permitted to substitute its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallable. 10. Considering pros and cons of the matter, we are of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction upon the Director (Information), U.P., Lucknow, to consider the representation of the petitioners upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order thereon. For the purpose of effective adjudication a copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures will also be treated as part and parcel of the representation. The authority, who is Director hereunder, will consider the representation independently and afresh without being influenced by the consideration of the other authority and pass the reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly, the order impugned stands set aside. However, this order will not prevent the petitioners in approaching the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in getting the plots of 0.75 Sq. mtr., if he, or they chooses to get. They are also not prevented from making offers on the basis of further advertisement of allotment of other plots, if any. 11. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of. 12. Interim order, if any, will continue till one week after communication of the order to be passed by the authority. 13. No order is passed as to costs. Sanjay Mishra, J.—I agree Order Accordingly ————