JUDGMENT A.K. Rath, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to quash the tender call notice dated 24.2.2014 issued by the Chief Engineer, Rural Works-I, Government of Orissa, vide Annexure-2, for construction of multipurpose cyclone shelter at Muktapur under Kerendatangi Gram Panchayat and the letter dated 27.8.2014, vide Annexure-1, issued by the Addl. Sub-Collector, Emergency, Collectorate, Nayagarh, to the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Nayagarh, opposite party no.7, stating therein that the site for construction of multipurpose cyclone shelter was selected at Muktapur in Kerendatangi Gram Panchayat under Ranpur Block of Nayagarh district on the basis of scientific parameters as per the recommendation of IIT, Kharagpur and turning down the request for change of site by the Government. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that he is the elected member of Kerandatangi Gram Panchayat. Earlier, he filed a writ petition being WP(C) (PIL) No. 4919 of 2014 challenging the proposal of the Managing Director, Orissa State Disaster Management Authority, opposite party no.2, (hereinafter referred to as “the OSDAMA”) to construct a cyclone shelter centre at Village-Muktapur and publication of tender call notice, vide Annexure-2. Prayer was made in the said writ petition to construct the cyclone centre at the centrally located place of the Gram Panchayat. By order dated 13.3.2014, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the matter in the following manner. “Prayer in this petition is for a direction to construct cyclone shelter centre at the centrally located place of the Gram Panchayat. Since location of cyclone shelter centre is primarily within the domain of the Executive, we dispose of this petition with direction that the opposite party no.4 may take a decision on the representation of the petitioner, Annexure-5 series, in accordance with law, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. Thereafter, he filed Misc. Case No.2 of 2014 before the Collector, Nayagarh. The Collector, Nayagarh disposed of the said misc. case on 23.5.2014 with a direction to hold a meeting of the PRI members and accordingly directed the B.D.O., Ranpur to fix a suitable date and intimate all the PRI members for selection of fresh site for construction of cyclone shelter at centrally located place. The Collector, Nayagarh disposed of the said misc. case on 23.5.2014 with a direction to hold a meeting of the PRI members and accordingly directed the B.D.O., Ranpur to fix a suitable date and intimate all the PRI members for selection of fresh site for construction of cyclone shelter at centrally located place. Thereafter, the B.D.O, Ranpur convened a meeting on 30.6.2014 wherein it was decided to construct the multipurpose cyclone centre at a central located place of the Gram Panchayat and accordingly the site was selected at campus of the Balakrushna Bidyapitha, Kerandatangi. On 2.8.2014, vide Annexure-6, the Collector, Nayagarh recommended the final site for construction of multipurpose cyclone centre. But then, by letter dated 27.8.2014, vide Annexure-1, the decision was taken to construct the multipurpose cyclone shelter at Muktapur in Kerendatangi Gram Panchayat. 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 4 and 5. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite parties 4 and 5 is that after super cyclone in October, 1999, the Government of Orissa have taken a decision to identify villages within 10 K.M belt of coast land, which do not have safe community shelters in the event of cyclone/flood for the vulnerable population and to suggest locations, where cyclone shelters should be constructed so as to safeguard the human life. The IIT, Kharagpur, the technically efficient Government Organization, was deployed to conduct the survey for the purpose. Thereafter, the State Level Steering Committee of National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Projects (in short, “the NCRMP”) in the meeting held on 18.3.2005 decided to include the adjoining areas of Chilka lake in Khurda District in the project implementation areas of NCRMP, vide Annexure-A/5. Accordingly, the OSDMA signed an agreement with IIT, Kharagpur on 5.4.2005, vide Annexure-B/5 for conducting a survey to identify location within 10 K.M zone of Chilika lake high tide line, where cyclone shelter needs to be constructed. The IIT, Kharagpur, Extension Centre, Bhubaneswar, conducted detailed survey setting certain parameter as per the geographical and climatically condition of the villages coming within 10 K.M zone of Chilika lake and submitted report on 1.9.2005. The said report had been approved in the meeting of the technical personnel held on 3.11.2005 and the same had been communicated to the IIT, Kharagpur by OSDMA in the letter dated 10.11.2005, vide Annexure C/5. The said report had been approved in the meeting of the technical personnel held on 3.11.2005 and the same had been communicated to the IIT, Kharagpur by OSDMA in the letter dated 10.11.2005, vide Annexure C/5. In the said report, four locations of Ranpur Block had been identified by IIT, Kharagpur for construction of multipurpose cyclone shelter. The locations are village Champagarh, Raikeda, Muktapur and Barangagadia. It is further stated that during survey, 29 villages of Ranpur Block had been surveyed and they had been grouped into different cluster basing on the location, population, facility available and vulnerability condition. In cluster 92, Raikeda, Nuapada, Kerendatangi & Nakithana villages were taken together and the IIT, Kharagpur suggested for construction of cyclone shelter of 1000 capacity at Raikeda whereas in cluster 93 villages like Muktapur, Ostapada, Krushnachandrapur and Jankia were taken together. The IIT, Kharagapur proposed for construction of cyclone shelter of 3000 capacity at Muktapur. In the survey report while mapping the vulnerability and availability of facilities in a village, G.P was not considered as an unit; but a cluster of village taken together basing on the location and other parameters as an unit in deciding the location for cyclone shelter. Kerandatangi and Muktapur were placed in different cluster. Therefore, these two villages should not be compared with each other while deciding location for construction of cyclone shelter. The locations for construction of cyclone shelters in different areas were finalized in the year 2005. But construction work was taken up in phase manner. In the aftermath of the very severe cyclone Phailin, Government had taken a decision to take up the work in the left out locations, i.e., 162 locations for construction of cyclone shelters. Out of 162 locations, 4 locations of Ranpur Tahasil as recommended by IIT, Kharagpur were also taken up. The petitioner approached this Court in WP(C) (PIL) No. 4919 of 2014 for change of selected site to Kerendatangi High School instead of Muktapur. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the opposite party no.4 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, Misc. The petitioner approached this Court in WP(C) (PIL) No. 4919 of 2014 for change of selected site to Kerendatangi High School instead of Muktapur. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the opposite party no.4 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, Misc. Case No.2 of 2014 was instituted for disposal of the petition of the petitioner as well as representation filed by the villagers of Kerendatangi G.P. The B.D.O., Ranpur was directed to conduct a meeting of the PRI members of the concerned G.P for the purpose. A resolution was passed by the PRI members to change the location of cyclone shelter in Kerendatangi G.P from Muktapur to Kerendatangi. Copy of the resolution and view of the B.D.O., Rangpur were forwarded to opposite party no.4, the Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue & D.M. Deptt. and the Managing Director, OSDMA, the executive head in the matter, seeking necessary instruction on this issue. Nowhere in the letter dated 2.8.2014, vide Annexure E/5, the Collector recommended for changing the site for construction of cyclone shelter from Muktapur to Kerendatangi. The proposal of PRI members for changing the site for construction of cyclone centre had been rejected by OSDMA on the ground that the site had been selected basing on the scientific survey made and recommendation thereof by IIT, Khragpur. Thereafter, opposite party no.7 was instructed to go ahead with the construction of multipurpose cyclone shelter as per the approved scheme at Muktapur. It is further stated that the Kissam of the land selected for construction of cyclone shelter at Muktapur is Gochar, but the de-reservation proceeding has been started vide case No.14/2014-2015 to change the classification of land from Gochar to Urnnat Yojana Jogya. The total land available in the village Muktapur is Ac.476.82 dec. The effective area is Ac.414.62 dec. The Gochar land required in the village @ 5% of the effective area is Ac.20.73 dec., whereas Gochar land available in the Mouza-Muktapur is Ac.100.70 dec. Therefore, a huge Gochar land is available in the village Muktapur. There is no harm in de-reserving Ac.0.32 dec. of Gochar land for the greater purpose of people of four villages grouped in cluster 93 of the survey report of IIT, Kharagpur. Therefore, a huge Gochar land is available in the village Muktapur. There is no harm in de-reserving Ac.0.32 dec. of Gochar land for the greater purpose of people of four villages grouped in cluster 93 of the survey report of IIT, Kharagpur. It is further stated that the selection of location for construction of cyclone shelter at Muktapur is scientifically proposed by IIT, Kharagpur and approved by the Government of Orissa. 5. A rejoinder has been filed controverting the stand taken by the opposite parties 4 and 5. 6. Heard Mr.Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate for the State. 7. Mr.Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court, by order dated 13.3.2014 passed in WP(C) (PIL) No. 4919 of 2014, directed the opposite party no.4 to take a decision in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Collector, Nayagarh, opposite party no.4 on 2.8.2014 sent a letter to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue & D.M. Deptt. & Managing Director, OSDMA, Bhubaneswar along with a photocopy of the resolution of the meeting held at Kerendatangi G.P., photocopy of the petition filed by the villagers Muktapur and photocopy map of Kerendatangi G.P. as well as the view of B.D.O., Ranpur. Drawing our attention to the said letter, he submits that the resolution and the view of the B.D.O., Ranpur reveal that Kerendatangi High School situated over Government Khata No.258 (Rakhit Anabadi), Plot No.337, Kisam-Unnat Yojana Yogya with an area of Ac.3.00 is feasible for cyclone shelter as the same is centrally located place of Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the Kissam of the land of the proposed multipurpose cyclone shelter is Gochar. Since the land has not been de-reserved, the opposite parties have committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in constructing the multipurpose cyclone shelter over a Gochar land. He further submits that the order dated 27.8.2014, vide Annexure-1, is a non-application of mind inasmuch as the same was not passed by the Government, but by the Managing Director, OSDAMA. 8. Per contra, Mr.Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate, submits that the construction of a cyclone shelter in a particular location is essentially an executive function and the same cannot be interfered with. 8. Per contra, Mr.Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate, submits that the construction of a cyclone shelter in a particular location is essentially an executive function and the same cannot be interfered with. The scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved, it is not the domain of the Court. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. He further submits that if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide, then only the Court can interfere with. He further submits that since a conscious decision has been taken by the Government pursuant to the report of IIT, Kharagpur that Muktapur in Kerendatangi Gram Panchayat under Ranpur Block of Nayagarh District is feasible for construction of multipurpose cyclone shelter, the present writ petition is misconceived. He further submits that in the meantime substantial construction has been made, which is neither disputed nor denied by Mr. Dalei, learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the rival submissions made at the Bar, really two points arise for consideration. (i) What is the scope of judicial review in the policy matter, such as, construction of multipurpose cyclone centre in a village. (ii) Whether the decision of the Government to construct the multipurpose cyclone centre at Muktapur in Kerendatangi Gram Panchayat under Ranpur Block of Nayagarh district is vitiated by arbitrariness. 10. Before embarking upon the rival contentions of the parties, we would like to deal with the ambit and scope of judicial review with regard to tenability of policy decisions. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premium Granites and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1994) 2 SCC 691 while considering the Court's powers in interfering with the policy decision observed at page-715 as under: (SCC para-54) "54. It is not the domain of the Court to embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether a particular public policy is wise or a better public policy can be evolved. Such exercise must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may be." 12. It is not the domain of the Court to embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether a particular public policy is wise or a better public policy can be evolved. Such exercise must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may be." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and others, (2002) 2 SCC 333 held that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. 13. The same view is echoed in the case of Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited and another vs. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and others, (2010) 6 SCC 303 . In paragraph-52 of the report, their Lordships' held as follows:- "The courts have repeatedly held that the government policy can be changed with changing circumstances and only on the ground of change, such policy will not be vitiated. The Government has a discretion to adopt a different policy or alter or change its policy calculated to serve public interest and make it more effective. Choice in the balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in the policy lies with the authority. But like any discretion exercisable by the Government or public authority, change in policy must be in conformity with Wednesbury reasonableness and free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias and malice.” 14. In the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly stated about the Wednesbury unreasonableness. In paragraph-96 of the report, their Lordships' held as follows:- "What is this charming principle of Wednesbury unreasonablenss? Is it a magical formula? In Re: v. Askew [1768] 4 2168, Lord Mansfield considered the question whether mandamus should be granted against the College of Physicians. He expressed the relevant principles in two eloquent sentences. In paragraph-96 of the report, their Lordships' held as follows:- "What is this charming principle of Wednesbury unreasonablenss? Is it a magical formula? In Re: v. Askew [1768] 4 2168, Lord Mansfield considered the question whether mandamus should be granted against the College of Physicians. He expressed the relevant principles in two eloquent sentences. They gained greater value two centuries later: It is true, that the judgment and discretion of determining upon this skill, ability, learning and sufficiency to exercise and practice this profession is trusted to the College of Physician: and this Court will not take it from them, nor interrupt them in the due and proper exercise of it. But their conduct in the exercise of this trust thus committed to them ought to be fair, candid and unprejudiced; not arbitrary, capricious, or biased; much less, warped by resentment, or personal dislike. 15. In the case of State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another vs. Sajeev @ Bitto, AIR 2005 SC 2080 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had again considered the principle of Wednesbury and held that :- "Therefore, to arrive at a decision on 'reasonableness" the Court has to find out if the administrator has left out relevant factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. The decision of the administrator must have been within the four corners of the law, and not one which no sensible person could have reasonably arrived at, having regard to the above principles, and must have been a bona fide one. The decision could be one of many choices open to the authority but it was for the authority to decide upon the choice and not for the Court to substitute its view". 16. Thus the Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. 17. Bearing in mind the principles of law enunciated by the apex Court in the decisions cited supra, we have given our anxious consideration to the matter in issue. 18. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. 17. Bearing in mind the principles of law enunciated by the apex Court in the decisions cited supra, we have given our anxious consideration to the matter in issue. 18. The Government of Orissa have taken a decision to identify villages within 10 K.M belt of coast land, which do not have safe community shelters in the event of cyclone/flood for the vulnerable population after super cyclone, which hit the coastal belt of Orissa in October, 1999. The IIT, Kharagpur was entrusted with the task of survey for the purpose. Accordingly, OSDAMA signed agreement with IIT, Kharagpur on 5.4.2005 for conducting a survey to identify location within 10 K.M zone of Chilika lake high tide line area. It conducted detailed survey setting certain parameter as per the geographical and climatically condition of the villages coming within 10 K.M zone of Chilika lake and submitted report on 1.9.2005. The said report was approved in the meeting of technical personnel held on 3.11.2005 and the same was communicated to the IIT, Kharagpur by OSDMA in the letter dated 10.11.2005. In the said report, four locations of Ranpur Block have been identified by IIT, Kharagpur, such as, Champagarh, Raikeda, Muktapur and Barangagadia. The survey was conducted in 29 villages of Ranpur Block and had been grouped into different cluster basing on the location, population, facility available and vulnerability condition. In cluster 92, Raikeda, Nuapada, Kerendatangi & Nakithana villages were taken together and IIT, Kharagapur proposed for construction of cyclone shelter of capacity 3000 at Muktapur. The locations for construction of cyclone shelters in different areas were finalized in the year 2005. The construction work was taken up in phase manner. In the aftermath of the severe cyclone ‘Phailin’, the Government have taken a decision to take up the work in the left out 162 locations for construction of cyclone shelters. Four locations of Ranpur Tahasil have been taken up. Pursuant to the decision of this Court, the B.D.O., Ranpur was directed to conduct a meeting of the PRI members of the concerned G.P for the purpose. A resolution was passed by the PRI members to change the location of cyclone shelter in Kerendatangi G.P from Muktapur to Kerendatangi. Copy of the resolution and the view of the B.D.O., Rangpur were forwarded to opposite party no.4, the Addl. A resolution was passed by the PRI members to change the location of cyclone shelter in Kerendatangi G.P from Muktapur to Kerendatangi. Copy of the resolution and the view of the B.D.O., Rangpur were forwarded to opposite party no.4, the Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue & D.M. Deptt. and the Managing Director, OSDMA. The said letter does not reveal that opposite party no.4 has made any recommendation for construction of multipurpose cyclone shelter at a particular place; rather it reveals that earlier a decision was taken on 14.8.2014 to construct the multipurpose cyclone shelter at Muktapur in Kerendatangi G.P as per the feasibility report of the IIT, Kharagpur. After conducting the survey, the IIT, Kharagpur has submitted a report and the same has been approved by OSDMA. The IIT, Kharagpur is an institution of national importance. When a conscious decision is taken by the Government of Orissa to accept the report of IIT, Kharagpur, there is hardly any scope of the judicial review. Though a feeble attempt has been made by Mr. Dalai that the report is arbitrary, but the submission has no legs to stand. 19. As we have stated earlier that the Government have taken a conscious decision to construct a multipurpose cyclone shelter at Muktapur in Kerendatangi G.P pursuant to the recommendation made by the IIT, Kharagpur, we hold that, merely because it has been urged that Balakrushna Bidyapitha, Kerendatangi is more suitable for construction of cyclone shelter, it is not the domain of the court to embark upon uncharted ocean of public policy. It is the executive domain of the Government. The decision does not suffer from vice of arbitrariness, nor mala fide. 20. Now we shall deal with the submission of Mr.Dalai that since the status of the land is Gochar, no construction can be made without any de-reservation and the decision to construct the cyclone centre was not taken by the Government, but by OSDMA. 21. We find that in the meantime de-reserve proceeding has been initiated by the Tahasildar, Ranpur vide case No.14/2014-2015 for change of classification of land from Gochar to Urnnat Yojana Jogya on 9.10.2014, vide Annexure-G/5. Neither the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 nor the Rules framed thereunder prohibits initiation of de-reserving proceeding after the construction is started. The submission of Mr.Dalai that the decision was not taken by the Government is equally baseless. Neither the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 nor the Rules framed thereunder prohibits initiation of de-reserving proceeding after the construction is started. The submission of Mr.Dalai that the decision was not taken by the Government is equally baseless. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha is the Managing Director of OSDMA. The villagers have also made a representation to the said authority. The letter dated 27.8.2014, vide Annexure-1, shows that on the basis of scientific parameters as per recommendation of IIT, Kharagpur, the site for construction of cyclone centre was selected at Muktapur by the Government. 22. The logical sequitur that follows from the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs is that the writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.