JUDGMENT :- 1. The three petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent - Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, 13th Battalion, Veerapuram, Chennai, dated 25.10.2010 and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent dated 18.11.2010 based on the office order dated 19.11.2010 in favour of the sixth and seventh respondents respectively and after setting aside the same to permit the petitioners to continue in possession/ occupation of their respective quarters as per the allotment order dated 11.10.2010 issued by the second respondent. 2. When the writ petition came up on 03.12.2010, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice for the official respondents and an interim stay was granted on the ground that no notice was given to the petitioners while passing the cancellation order. Subsequently, the interim order came to be extended until further orders by an order dated 04.1.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 21.1.2011. 3. It is seen from the records that out of 15 Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion in Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Special Police II Battallion, III Battalion, V Battalion, XIII Battalion, XV Battalion as and regimental centre, Avadi are located at Chennai. Excepting Battalion XIII, other Battalions are having police quarters for police personnel and the officers to reside. In order to provide available police quarters to the police personnel serving in all the Chennai based Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion without any discrimination, the Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, vide his proceedings dated 04.2.2010 had nominated the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police II Battalion as the Nodal Officer for allotment of police quarters to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Commandant, Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police III Battalion, Veerapuram as the Nodal Officer for allotment of police quarters to Inspectors of Police and the Commandant of V Battalion as the Nodal Officer for allotment of quarters to officers. All the three Nodal Officers were directed to maintain the common waiting list and allot the quarters to the police personnel and officers whenever any quarters fall vacant. 4. All the three Nodal Officers were directed to maintain the common waiting list and allot the quarters to the police personnel and officers whenever any quarters fall vacant. 4. The Commandant of XIII Battalion sent a letter to the Additional Director General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai informing that his Battalion was not having any quarters and requested to restore the powers of allotment of quarters to the respective Commandants. Since the newly constructed quarters auditable for Assistant Commandants, Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors for his Battalions, in anticipation of the order of the Additional Director General of Police, Armed Police, the then Commandant, allotted quarters meant for Inspectors to three Sub-Inspectors, who are the petitioners in this writ petition. At that time, there was no demand for quarters from Inspectors of that Battalion. However, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai vide message, dated 22.10.2010 directed the Commandant to follow the procedures in existence and directed to cancel the allotment orders dated 12.10.2010. In due obedience of the orders of the DIG of Police, Armed Police, allotment orders issued to the petitioners were cancelled vide order dated 25.10.2010. The petitioners requested the respondent to give 45 days’ time to vacate the quarters, which was also granted. Instead of vacating the quarters, as per the request, the petitioners have moved the Court and obtained interim order. 5. It was further contended that since there was no proposal earlier allotting quarters meant for the higher officer to any subordinates and also for the members of the XIII Battalion in anticipation of the orders of the Additional Director General of Police, Armed Police, the said allotment has been made and when the same was refused, it was also cancelled as it was contrary to the guidelines made earlier. It is also under Rule 77 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Manual, the Commandants are empowered to cancel the allotment of quarters. The then Commandant of the XIII Battalion, Tamil Nadu Special Police one S.Rajaraman, got retired on 31.10.2010 and he had made the allotment. It is apparent that it is before his retirement when he did not have any power to allot in normal circumstances. He should have forwarded this request to the Nodal Officer, who is the Commandant of the II Battalion. 6. It is apparent that it is before his retirement when he did not have any power to allot in normal circumstances. He should have forwarded this request to the Nodal Officer, who is the Commandant of the II Battalion. 6. It is further stated that the third petitioner was transferred from XIII Battalion to XI Battalion at Rajapalayam and the first petitioner Panneerselvam was not at all serving the III battalion and he was in the XV Battalion at Veerapuram. Thus the order passed illegally was only to be rectified to accord sanction for their continuance in the said quarters. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to state that the juniors were given allotment and that Manimaran will be posted for security work, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions. In the matter of allotment of quarters, the scope of any judicial review is very limited. 8. With reference to the scope of judicial review in the matter of housing accommodation, the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash, (2005) 13 SCC 495 , in paragraphs 5 to 8 held as follows:- "5. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the Appellate Authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in the matter of policy or to sermonise qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. (See Asif Hameed v. State of J&K1 and Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India2.) The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court, it cannot interfere. 6. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision-making taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 7. 6. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision-making taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 7. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government. 8. The Court should constantly remind itself of what the Supreme Court of the United States said in Metropolis Theater Co. v. City of Chicago: “The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is the best is not always discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review.” 9. Hence, this writ petition is misconceived and accordingly will stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.