Judgment :- 1. The issues arise in these writ petitions are one and the same and therefore all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.No.1552/2010 is filed by Kovai Mandala Ex-Servicemen and Family Welfare Association, representing the members at Coimbatore, Erode and Nilgiris District, challenging the order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the 5th respondent, under which it has been proposed to reduce some quantum of security guards in many exchanges from 1.2.2010. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is averred on behalf of the petitioner Association that it is registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and it has in its rolls about 420 members. The main object of the Society is to protect the interest and welfare of the members of the Association who are all Ex-servicemen spread over Coimbatore, Erode and Nilgiris District. 3. The 2nd respondent was established for the purpose of providing employment opportunities to the Ex-servicemen in various public sector undertakings and corporate bodies by sponsoring security agents. Similarly, the Government of Tamil Nadu has established the 3rd respondent for the above said purpose. The contract of providing security arrangement is awarded in favour of the 3rd respondent Corporation and payment is made directly to them and the 3rd respondent in turn, pays monthly salary to its members through bank account. The members of the petitioner Association are also covered by Group Insurance Scheme. 4. According to the petitioner, there are about 256 Ex-servicemen working in various Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short “BSNL”) Officers/Installation in Erode alone and out of them, more than 105 Ex-servicemen are members of the petitioner Association. The petitioner Association aggrieved by the impugned order, under which, BSNL has proposed to reduce the quantum of security guards in many exchanges with effect from 1.2.2010 and accordingly, the present strength of 256 persons employed will come down to 148. 5. It is further averred in the affidavit that the 3rd respondent filed W.P.No.23934/2008, challenging the proceedings of the 5th respondent in awarding contract for supply of security personnel in favour of private security agencies, writ petitions were filed, are dismissed on 22.4.2009. The 3rd respondent aggrieved by the dismissal of all of the writ petitions, filed writ appeal in W.A.No.573/2009 and the same was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.11.2009. The 3rd respondent aggrieved by the dismissal of all of the writ petitions, filed writ appeal in W.A.No.573/2009 and the same was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.11.2009. In order to overcome the said order, BSNL has resorted to reduction of security personnel employed through the 3rd respondent/TEXCO and the action on the part of BSNL is arbitrary, which would ultimately affect the livelihood of many Ex-servicemen, who fought for the security of the country and their families will also be affected. Hence, challenge is made to the above said impugned order passed by the BSNL. 6. On behalf of the respondents 4 & 5, counter affidavit has been filed stating among other things that the reduction of security guards who were employed through the 3rd respondent has nothing to do with the disposal of the Writ Appeal No.573/2009. According to BSNL, its revenue has been drastically reduced due to steep reduction in tariff and operating expenses had gone up. With a view to curtail the expenditure in all the areas, relevant factors were examined and several measures were initiated to curtail the expenditure and the reduction of number of guards is one among such measures. It is further stated in the counter that the security guards were engaged for protecting the telecom exchanges and stores and over a period of time, many of the stores were shifted to central locations and some stores which were less valuable and obsolete, were disposed of through MSTC (Metal Scrap Trading Corporation - a Govt. of India Undertaking). Consequently, only at selected places, stores are available. Further in view of additional staff of BSNL made available due to the reduction of telecom lines, there being no necessity to secure all exchanges round the clock. Whenever stores are not kept and telephone exchanges considered to be minor one, BSNL no longer needs security guards and only vital installations and major exchanges, necessity arises for deploying the security guards has arisen. Accordingly, a policy decision has been taken to engage the services of large number of Group C & Group D staffs of BSNL who have become surplus. Accordingly, a policy decision has been taken to engage the services of large number of Group C & Group D staffs of BSNL who have become surplus. It was further found that the services of Group C & Group D staffs cannot be dispensed with and as a matter of administrative policy and in view of the functional requirements, it has been proposed to utilize their services to man the security points. The reduction of security staffs employed through the 3rd respondent is one such measure. 7. It is further averred that the contract awarded to the 3rd respondent for providing security personnel has already came to an end on 31.3.2008 and it has been periodically extended till date. On account of the availability of Group C & Group D staffs, the services of the security personnel employed through the 3rd respondent is no longer required for major exchanges and installations and therefore, BSNL acting in a bonafide manner, taken a policy decision to reduce the strength. On a financial front, BSNL Erode Telecom District is incurring a sum of Rs.11,20,000/-towards unnecessary expenditure which are non-productive on account of deployment of security personnel through the 3rd respondent. Therefore, for the above said reasons, 4th and 5th respondent pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. The 3rd respondent/TEXCO has filed a counter, supporting the case of the petitioner association, as the security personnel are engaged through them. 8. On behalf of the petitioner, reply affidavit has been filed stating among other things that there has been no recruitment in BSNL in Group C & Group D category for the past few years and the present strength is far less than the sanctioned strength and in fact there is a acute shortage of staffs. It is further averred that any policy/administrative decision of a public sector undertaking should be reasonable, bonafide and tenable. It is also averred that only in order to get over the effect of the judgment in W.A.No.573/2009, the BSNL has decided to reduce the strength of the security personnel and painted a picture as if they got their surplus staffs and went to deploy them for guarding the installations. 9. It is also averred that only in order to get over the effect of the judgment in W.A.No.573/2009, the BSNL has decided to reduce the strength of the security personnel and painted a picture as if they got their surplus staffs and went to deploy them for guarding the installations. 9. On behalf of the respondents 4 & 5, additional counter as well as reply affidavit had been filed stating among other things that the Ex-servicemen employed through the 3rd respondent are not their employees and only their members and hence they can be accommodated by other security agencies and also in other installations. 10. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.4080 & 4081/2010 had filed these writ petitions challenging the orders dated 9.2.2010 and 11.2.2010 respectively, passed by the 5th respondent, under which the security guards noted in the said proceedings are to be withdrawn with effect from a particular date. Challenging the vires of the said proceedings similar contentions were raised in these writ petitions. 11. Cuddalore District Ex-Services League, a registered body has filed the W.P.No.15872/2010, forbearing the respondents/BSNL from removing the security staff on duty in the offices of BSNL telephone exchanges/installations under the control of the respondents. Similar contentions were raised and the respondents in their counter had taken similar stand as that of their counter in W.P.No.1552/2010. 12. Heard Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan appearing for Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.1552, 4080 & 4081/2010, Mr.R.Guru Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15872/2010, Mr.Rajasekaran, Mr.S.Velusamy, Mr.K.R.Rameshkumar, Mr.S.Dakshinamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the BSNL in respective writ petitions and Ms.Pushpa Menon appearing for the 3rd respondent/TEXCO in W.P.No.1552/2010 and Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/TEXCO in W.P.Nos.4080 & 4081/2010. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions would contend that admittedly the members of the petitioners Association were registered with the 3rd respondent namely Tamil Nadu Ex Servicemens Corporation Ltd (TEXCO) - A Govt. of Tamil Nadu Undertaking and they fought for the security of the country. After their period of active service, they are rehabilitated by engaging their services in installations of national importance as they, in their capacity as Ex Army men are trained in such kind of activities. of Tamil Nadu Undertaking and they fought for the security of the country. After their period of active service, they are rehabilitated by engaging their services in installations of national importance as they, in their capacity as Ex Army men are trained in such kind of activities. It is further submitted that challenging the proceedings of BSNL in taking steps to employ the services of the private security agencies, W.P.Nos.21489, 21788 & 23934/2008 were filed by TEXCO and those writ petitions were dismissed by a common order dated 22.4.2009. Challenge was made by TEXCO with regard to the dismissal of W.P.No.23934/2008, by filing an appeal in W.A.No.573/2009. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2009 has allowed the writ appeal and in Para 23 it has been held as follows: “23. Hence, there is nothing wrong in the appellant corporation participating in the tender process and challenging their restriction to one zone. Their participation was necessary to examine whether they were giving an equal offer. That is necessary from the welfare of ex-servicemen. That is a material condition. If that was not so, their bid could have been rejected. However, once they give an equal offer and if they are being restricted, there is nothing wrong in their pointing out that the decision is contrary to BSNLs own decision dated 16th May 2007, which is in consonance with the directives of the Defence Ministry. Since BSNL has itself issued the circular dated 16th May, 2007 giving a preferential treatment to the appellant, clause 7(3) of the tender document will have to be confined only to examine if the appellant is giving equal terms. In the event, it does not it will get eliminated, but if it gives equal terms, the entire work will have to be given to the appellant. It was submitted that as per Note No.1, below guideline no.73, all guidelines/instructions issued on the subject prior to the guidelines stand suspended with effect from 01.02.2006. This note however, cannot supersede the directives of the Ministry itself nor the circular of BSNL issued thereafter on 16th May, 2007.” 14. It was submitted that as per Note No.1, below guideline no.73, all guidelines/instructions issued on the subject prior to the guidelines stand suspended with effect from 01.02.2006. This note however, cannot supersede the directives of the Ministry itself nor the circular of BSNL issued thereafter on 16th May, 2007.” 14. It is the specific stand of the respective writ petitioner that only in order to get over the effect of the order passed in the above said writ appeal, BSNL under the guise of policy decision had taken a decision to reduce the strength of security personnel employed through TEXCO and the said act is actuated by malafides. It is further contended that the act on the part of BSNL in taking such a decision is an arbitrary one and in fact there is no reduction in the business of BSNL even though the private players are also operating in the said field and that the revenue of BSNL has getting increased day by day. Hence there is no necessity on the part of BSNL to reduce the strength of the security personnel employed through TEXCO. 15. It is contended by the respective counsel appearing for the petitioners that in fact there is a shortage of Group C & Group D personnel in BSNL and it is false to contend that there are surplus staff available in those categories. It is further contended by the respective counsel appearing for the petitioners that telecom installations are vital and security oriented and in view of the present trend, specialization is required and members of the petitioners Association who are registered with TEXCO are Ex Army men and they are the right persons to guard the installations/stores of BSNL. In the event of Group C & Group D staff of BSNL is employed for security purposes, then the security of vital installations will get diluted. Therefore, the respective counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed for the quashment of the impugned orders and for continuous deployment of Ex-service personnel. 16. Per contra, the respective counsel appearing for the BSNL would contend that respective petitioner Association cannot maintain these writ petitions and if at all any person aggrieved, it is only the TEXCO and they have not chosen to challenge the vires of the impugned orders. 16. Per contra, the respective counsel appearing for the BSNL would contend that respective petitioner Association cannot maintain these writ petitions and if at all any person aggrieved, it is only the TEXCO and they have not chosen to challenge the vires of the impugned orders. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the BSNL that the decision was taken after deliberations and taking into account the expenditure involved in deploying the security personnel through the 3rd respondent and reduction in the revenue of BSNL and the surplus staff available on account of closing of some of the installations, a policy decision has been taken to reduce the strength of such security personnel and instead to deploy the surplus Group C & Group D staffs of BSNL. The only option left with the BSNL is to retrench the services of the Group C & Group D staffs and it may lead to further complications and labour unrest and hence a decision has been taken in a fair and proper manner to deploy them in minor installations/stores during day time and during night time the services of security personnel deployed through TEXCO will be utilized. In so far as major installations/stores are concerned, the services of Ex-servicemen will continue to be utilized. It is also contended by the respective counsel appearing for the BSNL that the said policy decision has been taken in a bonafide manner and there is no arbitrariness involved and the said decision has been taken purely on account of interest of public sector undertaking namely BSNL. It is vehemently denied by the respective counsel appearing for the BSNL that the said decision has been taken not on account of orders passed in the above said writ appeal. It is also submitted that the contract period has expired on 31.3.2008 and by virtue of the interim orders, it has been extended and since the period of contract has already came to an end, it is not open to the petitioner Association to compel the BSNL to employ their services. Hence for the said reasons, the respective counsel appearing for the BSNL prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. 17. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 18. Hence for the said reasons, the respective counsel appearing for the BSNL prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. 17. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 18. As regards the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for BSNL that the respective Association cannot maintain these writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly they are the members of TEXCO, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking which has been established solely for the purpose of providing further employment opportunities to Ex-service personnel. The members of the petitioner Association had also registered with TEXCO and their services were utilized through TEXCO. Regarding the reduction of security personnel employed through TEXCO, the TEXCO cannot challenge such proceedings as it is not directly affected by such a reduction. The persons ultimately affected by such reduction are the members of the petitioner Association and apprehending that their livelihood will be in danger, they filed these writ petitions. In fact TEXCO has also supported their cause. In view of the said reasons, this Court holds that the writ petitions preferred by the respective Association are maintainable. 19. The primordial question arises for consideration is whether the decision taken by the BSNL to reduce the strength of security personnel deployed through TEXCO is sustainable ? 20. It is useful to refer some important decisions dealing with the aspect of judicial review in the matters of Government contracts, tenders and change in policy. 21. In Hughes v. Deptt. Of Health and Social Security, 1985 AC 776, Lord Diplock, J. said (AC p.788B) “.... Administrative policies may change with changing circumstances, including changes in the political complexion of governments. The liberty to make such changes is something that is inherent in our constitutional form of government.” 22. 21. In Hughes v. Deptt. Of Health and Social Security, 1985 AC 776, Lord Diplock, J. said (AC p.788B) “.... Administrative policies may change with changing circumstances, including changes in the political complexion of governments. The liberty to make such changes is something that is inherent in our constitutional form of government.” 22. In Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v. Quin, (1990) 64 Aust LJR 327 (Aust HC), Mason, C.J. (majority view, the Australian High Court) observed: “ Once this is accepted, I am unable to perceive how a representation made or an impression created by the Executive can preclude the Crown or an Executive from adopting a new policy, or acting in accordance with such a policy, in relation to the appointment of Magistrates, so long as the new policy is one that falls within the ambit of the relevant duty or discretion, as in this case the new policy unquestionably does. The Executive cannot by representation or promise disable itself from; or hinder itself in, performing a statutory duty or exercising a statutory discretion to be performed or exercised in the public interest, by binding itself not to perform the duty or exercise the discretion in a particular way in advance of the actual performance of the duty or exercise of the power...” 23. In R. v. Secy of State for Transport, ex p Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council, (1994) 1 WLR 74, while laying down that the Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. (1948) 1 KB 223] reasonableness test alone was applicable for finding out if the change from one policy to another was justified, Laws, J. stated : (Secy. of State case, WLR p.94 B-C) “. The Court is not the judge of the merits of the decision-makers policy.” the public authority in question is the judge of the issue whether the overriding public interest justifies a change in policy.... But this is no more than to assert that a change in policy, like any discretionary decision by a public authority, must not transgress Wednesbury principles.” 24. In State of Maharashtra and Another v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha and Others, (1971) 2 SCC 140, the petitioner moved an application for opening a new school which was rejected by the authority. The rejection was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in the High Court. In State of Maharashtra and Another v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha and Others, (1971) 2 SCC 140, the petitioner moved an application for opening a new school which was rejected by the authority. The rejection was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and directed the authority to grant permission to the petitioner to start school. Reversing the judgment, the Honble Supreme Court said: “9.... So long as there is no violation of any fundamental rights and if the principles of natural justice are not offended, it was not for the High Court to lay down the policy that should be adopted by the educational authorities in the matter of granting permission for starting schools. The question of policy is essentially for the State and such policy will depend upon an overall assessment and summary of the requirements of residents of a particular locality and other categories of persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for education. If the overall assessment is arrived at after a proper classification on a reasonable basis, it is not for the courts to interfere with the policy leading up to such assessment.” 25. In M.P. Oil Extraction and Another v. State of M.P. and Others, (1997) 7 SCC 592 , the Honble Supreme Court said that unless a policy decision is absolutely capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary and based on mere ipse dixit of the executive authority or is violative of any constitutional or statutory mandate, courts interference is not called for. The executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the court should not embark on the adequacy of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long it falls within the constitutional limitations and does not offend any provision of the statute. 26. In Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 635 , a challenge was made to the executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. 26. In Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 635 , a challenge was made to the executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. The Honble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions unless such policy framed could be faulted on the grounds of malafide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, unfairness, etc. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. The courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State. 27. In Dharmpur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 418 , the petitioner company owned a factory in the State of Uttaranchal. The company was engaged in the manufacture, sale and supply of sugar. One IGL submitted an application for grant of a licence for power-driven crusher for manufacturing rab from sugarcane. The application was rejected as per the licensing policy of the Government whereunder a new licence to khandsari unit could not be granted in the reserved area of the existing sugar mills. However, the State Government modified its earlier sugar policy and the Government was empowered to relax the limitation in certain cases. When new policy came into force, the IGL unit submitted a fresh application for grant of licence. The said application was allowed by the licensing authority observing that the new unit would not adversely affect adequate and sufficient surplus of sugarcane to the sugar mills in the reserved area and thus relaxation under the policy can be given. While considering the policy decision, the Honble Supreme Court observed that - a court of law is not expected to propel into the unchartered ocean of government policies. Once it is held that the Government has power to frame and reframe, change and rechange, adjust and readjust policy, the said action cannot be declared illegal, arbitrary or ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution only on the ground that the earlier policy had been given up, changed or not adhered to. Once it is held that the Government has power to frame and reframe, change and rechange, adjust and readjust policy, the said action cannot be declared illegal, arbitrary or ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution only on the ground that the earlier policy had been given up, changed or not adhered to. It also cannot be attacked on the plea that the earlier policy was better and suited to the prevailing situation.” 28. In Mohd. Fida Karim v. State of Bihar, (1992) 2 SCC 631 , while dealing with a case of change in government policy for license under the Bihar Excise Act, the Honble Supreme Court held thus: (SCC p. 634, para 7) “7.....The new policy of adopting the method of auction-cum-tender is certainly a change of policy. The reason for change of policy given by the Government is that it realised that making settlement for five years would give rise to monopolistic tendency, which will not be in public interest, at the same time the interest of revenue was not fully protected in the former policy. This clearly goes to show that the Government wanted to adopt a new policy in public interest to be made applicable from the year 1991-1992. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted in clear terms that the earlier policy was wrong and the Government realised its mistake and thus adopted a new policy to augment its revenue and to avoid monopolistic tendency. We do not find anything wrong in taking such view by the State Government and to change its policy considering the same to be in public interest.” 29. In Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 445 , the Honble Supreme Court while dealing with judicial review in a matter relating to publication of telephone directories of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (a Government of India Undertaking) made the following observations: (SCC p.455, para 12) “12. At time it is said that public authorities must have the same liberty as they have in framing the policies, even while entering into contracts because many contracts amount to implementation or projection of policies of the Government. At time it is said that public authorities must have the same liberty as they have in framing the policies, even while entering into contracts because many contracts amount to implementation or projection of policies of the Government. But it cannot be overlooked that unlike policies, contracts are legally binding commitments and they commit the authority which may be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution in many cases for years. That is why the courts have impressed that even in contractual matters the public authority should not have unfettered discretion. In contracts having commercial element, some more discretion has to be conceded to the authorities so that they may enter into contracts with persons, keeping an eye on the augmentation of the revenue. But even in such matters they have to follow the norms recognised by courts while dealing with public property. It is not possible for courts to question and adjudicate every decision taken by an authority, because many of the government undertakings which in due course have acquired the monopolist position in matters of sale and purchase of products and with so many ventures in hand, they can come out with a plea that it is not always possible to act like a quasi-judicial authority while awarding contracts. Under some special circumstances a discretion has to be conceded to the authorities who have to enter into contract giving them liberty to assess the overall situation for purpose of taking a decision as to whom the contract be awarded and at what terms. If the decisions have been taken in bona fide manner although not strictly following the norms laid down by the courts, such decisions are upheld on the principle laid down by Justice Holmes, that courts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions must grant certain measure of freedom of play in the joints to the executive.” 30. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , a three-Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court of India extensively considered the English decisions as well as the previous decisions in the matter of judicial review and tenders and formulated the legal principles in para 94 and the same is extracted below: “(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) 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, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditures.” 31. In Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437 , the Honble Supreme Court has held that non-renewal of permit by the Government to a private party on the ground of change in its policy cannot be faulted if such change is founded on Wednesbury reasonableness and is otherwise not arbitrary, irrational and perverse. In para 22 to 23 of the said decision, it has been held as follows: “22. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities and adopt trade policies. As noted above, the ultimate test is whether on the touchstone of reasonableness the policy decisions comes out unscathed. 23. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. 23. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country.” 32. A question arose for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in (2005) 1 SCC 625 , Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, as to whether before withdrawal of benefits extended to the appellant therein as subsidy, whether an opportunity of hearing has to be provided and it has been held as follows: “21.... We find no substance in the plea that before a policy decision is taken no amend or alter the promise indicated in any particular notification, the beneficiary was to be granted an opportunity of hearing. Such a plea is clearly unsustainable. While taking policy decision, the Government is not required to hear the persons who have been granted the benefit which is sought to be withdrawn.” 33. From the above cited decisions, it is apparent that a policy decision taken by the Government / Government undertaking cannot be faulted unless it suffers from unreasonableness, arbitrariness, unfairness or it is beyond legislative powers of the State or is beyond constitutional limits. 34. In the additional typed set of papers filed on behalf of the BSNL in W.P.No.1552/2010, the particulars of working connections in land line for the period 2003-2009 have been given and so also the year-wise revenue particulars from 20032009 and month-wise revenue from April 2009 to February 2010 and also the expenditure particulars from 2005-2010. 34. In the additional typed set of papers filed on behalf of the BSNL in W.P.No.1552/2010, the particulars of working connections in land line for the period 2003-2009 have been given and so also the year-wise revenue particulars from 20032009 and month-wise revenue from April 2009 to February 2010 and also the expenditure particulars from 2005-2010. The details of surplus staffs available in BSNL, Erode were also provided. 35. Perusal of those documents would indicate that there were gradual decrease in the working connection of BSNL and there is also variance in month-wise revenue from April 2009 to February 2010. As per the particulars provided for availability of surplus staffs, the entire surplus staffs available is given as 91. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is obligatory on the part of BSNL to produce the connected records before the Court and justify that there is actual reduction in revenue and availability of surplus staffs. It is also contended by the respective counsel appearing for the petitioners that in the notice inviting sealed tenders for deployment of security guards for the year 2008-2009, it has been stated that the entire quantity is approximately 275 and likely to be increased or decreased in the due course. In the light of the said notification, it is not open to BSNL to contend that the security personnel deployed through TEXCO to the number indicated above as no longer required, in view of the availability of their own Group C & Group D staffs. It is the specific case of the petitioners that only after the allowing of the Writ Appeal No.573/2009 by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.11.2009, the sudden change of policy came into operation and it is vitiated by malafides and the decision taken to reduce the strength of Ex-servicemen is purely arbitrary. 36. Perusal of the above said particulars provided in the additional typed set of papers would indicate that there is some gradual reduction in land line and there is variance in the revenue collection either it is increased or decreased. The submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the petitioners that unless the documents are produced by BSNL to substantiate the reduction in land line and in revenue, this Court cannot place reliance upon those documents, in the considered opinion of this Court, lacks merit and substance. The submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the petitioners that unless the documents are produced by BSNL to substantiate the reduction in land line and in revenue, this Court cannot place reliance upon those documents, in the considered opinion of this Court, lacks merit and substance. Extracts are produced from the records maintained by the BSNL in the normal course of business and there is no occasion for this Court to suspect the genuineness of those records. As regards malafide acts on the part of BSNL, it is settled position of law that a plea of malafide should be specifically averred and proved. Mere wording that the authorities are acting in a malafide manner is not sufficient. The burden of establishing malafides is very high on the person who alleges it and the allegations of malafides are often more easily made than to prove and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. However, those basic requirements are absent in the case projected by the writ petitioners. 37. As regards the plea of arbitrariness, the question whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on the facts and circumstances of the given case. An obvious test to apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness. Every such action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act ununiformed by reason is arbitrary. 38. The counter affidavit and the reply affidavit filed by the respondent 4 & 5/BSNL in W.P.No.1552/2010 would clearly disclose that the revenue of BSNL has been drastically reduced due to steep reduction of tariff and sky rocketing of operating expenses. In order to curtail the expenditure in all areas, a decision has been taken to curtail the expenditure and the reduction of number of guards is one among such measure. It is further stated by the BSNL that in many of the centres, stores were shifted to central locations and some stores which were valuable but became obsolete were disposed of through MSTC (Metal Scrap Trading Corporation, a Govt. of India Undertaking) and stores are now available only at selected places. It is further stated by the BSNL that in many of the centres, stores were shifted to central locations and some stores which were valuable but became obsolete were disposed of through MSTC (Metal Scrap Trading Corporation, a Govt. of India Undertaking) and stores are now available only at selected places. On account of it and due to reduction in telephone lines connections it was found that there is no necessity to secure all the exchanges round the clock and hence a decision has been taken to deploy additional staffs of BSNL in Group C & Group D as security guards. It is further stated that in vital installations and in major exchanges, security guards are engaged round the clock and in other exchanges, security guards are engaged during night and BSNL staffs during day time. 39. No credible material has been placed before this Court by the petitioner to show that inspite of requirements, the strength of security personnel employed through TEXCO has been deliberately reduced and this Court is not in a position to suspect about the decision taken by BSNL for reduction of Ex-service personnel. It is not as if the BSNL is dispensing with the services of Ex-service personnel deployed/employed through TEXCO and the learned counsel appearing for BSNL would submit that their services will be continued to be utilized based upon other requirements. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5/BSNL in W.P.No. 1552/2010, on instructions would submit that the services of other private agencies will not be utilized and they will comply with the order dated 27.11.2009 made in W.A.No.573/09 in letter and spirit and the same is recorded. 40. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that TEXCO provides services of Ex-service personnel not only to BSNL but also to other organizations/industries. It cannot be said that once BSNL reduces the engagement of Ex-service personnel employed through TEXCO, those persons will be deprived of their livelihood, as the chances of utilizing their services in some other organizations cannot be ruled out totally. 41. It cannot be said that once BSNL reduces the engagement of Ex-service personnel employed through TEXCO, those persons will be deprived of their livelihood, as the chances of utilizing their services in some other organizations cannot be ruled out totally. 41. This Court after careful consideration and appreciation of entire materials available on record and in the light of ratios laid down in the above cited decisions is of the considered opinion that the act on the part of BSNL in taking a policy decision to reduce the deployment of Ex-servicemen employed through TEXCO, is not actuated by any malafides and it is not arbitrary. Therefore, these writ petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 42. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. But in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, interim orders are vacated and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.