JUDGMENT : Vineet Saran, C.J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation by an advocate claiming that the decision of the State Government in abolishing the check gates, with effect from 01.04.2016, under the Commercial Tax and the Transport Organization would be against the interest of the State and the public, and as such it is prayed that such decision taken by the Government on 22.02.2016, on the basis of the minutes of the High Level Committee of Officers headed by the Addl. Chief Secretary held on 17.02.2016, be quashed. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the check gates are abolished then there would be every chance of evasion of tax, which would cause loss of revenue to the State. It is submitted that Section 74 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short, "the Act") provides for establishment of check posts or barriers at such places which may be specified. It is thus contended that since the Act provides for establishment of check gates/check posts, abolition of the same would be against the law and also against the interest of the public at large. 4. We have considered the provisions of Section 74 of the Act as well as perused the minutes of the meeting of Senior Officers of the State Government held on 17.02.2016 proposing to abolish the check gates with effect from 01.04.2016, and are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the decision of the State Government. 5. Section 74 of the Act provides that the Government may, if so required, establish check posts or barriers to avoid evasion of tax. It does not mandate that check posts or barriers should be always established. It is to be established at the discretion of the Government, which it had done so earlier but with the passage of time, and as has been noted in the minutes dated 17.02.2016, the same has lost its significance, which is because of expansion of roads and bye-passes around the check gates. It is to be established at the discretion of the Government, which it had done so earlier but with the passage of time, and as has been noted in the minutes dated 17.02.2016, the same has lost its significance, which is because of expansion of roads and bye-passes around the check gates. It is also recorded in the said minutes that as a substitute mechanism, there should be deployment of interceptive vehicles, GPS tracking system and other such alternative modes to check the evasion of tax, etc. 6. In our opinion, with the change of times and circumstances, the mode of checking of evasion of tax also requires to undergo a change. It is noted that all the authorised and competent senior officers of the State Government have taken a decision in this regard, and it is not for the Court to interfere with the same. The officials dealing with the matter would be the appropriate authority to take a decision, and merely because there is a provision for establishment of such check posts or barriers, it would not mean that the Act mandates establishment of such check posts. The appropriate authority has taken a conscious decision in the matter after considering all the relevant aspects, which, in our considered view, does not call for any interference. 7. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Final Result : Dismissed