Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Petitioner has called in question Annexures P-7 and P-8, whereby funding to the Mahila Mandal Programmes stands withdrawn, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. The respondents have filed separate replies. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 3 in their reply have stated that the respondents have made a conscious decision after taking into consideration all the schemes in operation and were of the view that this scheme is to be discontinued and accordingly, it is discontinued. It is apt to reproduce paras 4 and 5 of the reply on merits filed by respondents No. 1 and 3 herein: “4. That in reply to the contents of para 6 & 7 of the petition it 8is submitted that Rajiv Gandhi National Creche scheme and ICDS (Integrated Child Development scheme) are two different scheme/Programmes being run through Central Social Welfare Board and State Govt. respectively. Both these programmes cater different beneficiaries however respondents take very care to avoid any overlapping of any programme. 5. That in reply to the contents of para 8 & 9 of the respondent board in order to avoid overlapping took conscious decision to freeze funds on account of remuneration under Mahila Mandal Scheme at that level in the year 1998. The scheme for the benefits of children in the age group of 0-6 are being run under ICDS and Rajiv Gandhi Creche programmes.” 4. Respondent No. 2 has also filed separate reply. It is apt to reproduce para 3 of the preliminary submissions herein: “3. That it is pertinent to mention here that in Govt. sector State Govt. is running Anganwadi Centres under centrally sponsored scheme of Integrated Child Development Scheme, under which services like non-formal pre school education, immunization, health and nutrition education, health check up and referral services etc are provided to the children and women. At present more than 18000 Anganwadi Centres are being run in the State. It is submitted that through Anganwadi Centres besides services like nonformal pre school education, immunization, health and nutrition education, health check up and referral services counseling services to the mothers of the newly born children and to newly wedded couples and pregnant and nursing mothers re also provided by Anganwadi Workers and this programme has become flagship programme for women and children. Due to universalisation of Integrated Child Development Scheme in the State other similar programmes for women and children like Balwadi, Creche, Mahila Mandal and family and Child Welfare Projects programmes have become redundant.” 5. Respondent No. 4, in its reply, has stated that respondents have made a conscious decision. It is apt to reproduce para 6 of the reply on merits filed by respondent No. 4 herein: “6. That the contents of para 10 of the petition are admitted to the extent that the Central Social Welfare Board has decided to discontinue the Mahila Mandal Scheme however owing to the reason that these schemes are being implemented through other schemes. It is incorrect that NGOs were asked only not to induct fresh staff. It is submitted that the respondent board has decided to discontinue the scheme w.e.f. 1-4-2012.” 6. The moot question is – whether the Writ Court can interfere with the decision made by the Executive or any Authority? 7. It is beaten law of land that the Writ Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the executive functions unless case for judicial review is carved out. 8. The Apex Court in Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 AIR SCW 1399, has laid down the guidelines and held that Courts should not interfere in policy decision of the Government, unless there is arbitrariness on the face of it. 9. The Apex Court in a latest decision reported in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India and another, (2013) 6 SCC 616 , also held that interference by the Court on the ground of efficacy of the policy is not permissible. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of the said decision as under: “14. On matters affecting policy, this Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. The impugned policy that allows FDI up to 51% in multi-brand retail trading does not appear to suffer from any of these vices.” 10. The Apex Court in the case titled as Mrs. Asha Sharma versus Chandigarh Administration and others, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5636 has held that policy decision cannot be quashed on the ground that another decision would have been more fair, wise, scientific or logical and in the interest of society. The Apex Court in the case titled as Mrs. Asha Sharma versus Chandigarh Administration and others, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5636 has held that policy decision cannot be quashed on the ground that another decision would have been more fair, wise, scientific or logical and in the interest of society. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the aforesaid judgment herein: “10. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logic. The principle of reasonableness and non arbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Reference in this regard can also be made to Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal [ (2000) 8 SCC 262 : ( AIR 2000 SC 3313 )].” 11. It appears that the respondents have examined all aspects and made the decision. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision making process is bad. The Court can not sit in appeal and examine correctness of policy decision. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhubaneswar Development Authority and another versus Adikanda Biswal and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 731 has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the judgment (supra) herein: “19. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the statutory authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The Court confines itself to the question of legality and is concerned only with, whether the decision making authority exceeded its power, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers.” 12. This Court in the cases titled as Nand Lal & another versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No. 621 of 2014; Sher Singh versus State of H. P. & others, being CWP No. 7115 of 2013 and Gurbachan versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No. 4625 of 2012 has also laid down the same proposition of law. 13. Applying the test to the instant case, the petitioner has not questioned the decision-making process but has questioned the decision arrived at by the authorities. 14. Having said so, this petition merits dismissal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.