JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Before even commencing the arguments on the merits of the writ petition, Mr. M. Gnanasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be withdrawn and dismissed. 2. Claiming himself to be a public interest litigant, a practicing advocate, has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the schools under the control of Andimadam Panchayat Union to District Educational Office, Udayarpalayam. 3. Material on record discloses that in Ariyalur District, there are 777 schools. Keeping in mind, the administration and supervision, Ariyalur District has been trifurcated into three District Educational Offices. Details are hereunder. SCHOOLS Union Ele. Middle Nursery High & Higher (Govt. Aided, Metri, Self Finance Total Schools consisted in two unions Ariyalur 74 22 14 39 149 266 Thirumanur 61 22 8 26 117 Sendurai 66 17 10 27 120 231 Andimadam 58 19 10 24 111 Jayankondam 89 24 12 41 160 280 T. Pazur 66 20 8 20 114 Total 414 124 62 177 777 777 4. Contending inter alia that suffice to have two District Educational Offices, in Ariyalur District and accordingly, 777 schools should be allotted, a representation dated 31.05.2018 seemed to have been made by Teacher and Staff association, Andimadam Circle, Andimadam Taluk, Ariyalur District, to the Secretary to the Government, Education Department, Chennai and to suitably correct and divide the unions and schools, for two District Educational Offices. Details are as hereunder. SCHOOLS Union Ele. Middle Nursery High & Higher (Govt. Aided, Metri, Self Finance Total Schools consisted in two unions Ariyalur 74 22 14 39 149 386 Thirumanur 61 22 8 26 117 Sendurai 66 17 10 7 120 Andimadam 58 19 10 24 111 391 Jayankondam 89 24 12 41 160 T. Pazur 66 20 8 20 114 Total 414 124 62 177 777 777 5. Petitioner has not made any representation. On the basis of the representation dated 31.05.2018, by the abovesaid association, instant writ petition has been filed for the relief stated supra. 6. Considering the number of schools in Ariyalur District, Government have thought it fit to have 3 District Educational Offices located in different places. As stated supra, the number of Elementary, Matric, Nursery, High and Higher secondary (Govt. 6. Considering the number of schools in Ariyalur District, Government have thought it fit to have 3 District Educational Offices located in different places. As stated supra, the number of Elementary, Matric, Nursery, High and Higher secondary (Govt. Aided, Matric and Self financing) schools and Unions in Ariyalur District, have been taken into consideration and thus the that Government have located three District Educational Offices, at different places. 7. Contention of the Teachers and Staff association that they have to travel more than 60 kms to go to the District Educational Office, cannot be a ground to reduce the number of District Educational Offices or the location of the office, as the case may be. It is not for the Teacher and Staff Association or for the petitioner to suggest, as to how many District Educational Offices to be created, and where the District Educational Offices have to be located. Courts do not run administration and it is for the Government to decide, where the offices should be located. It is well settled that Courts cannot run Governments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, had time and again, reminded that the Judges must not try to perform legislative or executive function. 8. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and Others, (2000) 10 SCC 664 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the Court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The Court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the Court's jurisdiction. 233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power, the Court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The Courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The Courts must therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere. The Courts must therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the Court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words, the Court itself is not above the law. 234. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the Courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation, the Court should not refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision." 9. The above mentioned observations have been quoted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balco Employees Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 333 . 10. In Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club And Another, (2008) 1 SCC 683 , in paragraphs Nos.17, 19, 20 and 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "17. Before parting with this case, we would like to make some observations about the limits of the powers of the judiciary. Union of India and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 333 . 10. In Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club And Another, (2008) 1 SCC 683 , in paragraphs Nos.17, 19, 20 and 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "17. Before parting with this case, we would like to make some observations about the limits of the powers of the judiciary. We are compelled to make these observations because we are repeatedly coming across cases where judges are unjustifiably trying to perform executive or legislative functions. In our opinion this is clearly unconstitutional. In the name of judicial activism judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the State. 19. Under our Constitution, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. Ordinarily, it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction. 20. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behalve like emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State - the legislature, the executive and the judiciary - must have respect for the other and must not encroach into each other's domains. 22. In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India (vide AIR para 113 : SCC para 94), this Court observed that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The same view has been taken in a large number of other decisions also, but it is unfortunate that many Courts are not following these decisions and are trying to perform legislative or executive functions. In our opinion adjudication must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimisation of the Judges' preferences. The Court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realise that administrative authorities have expertise in the filed of administration while the Court does not. In the words of Neely VJ (Scc p.681, para 82). "82.... I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a Judge ... The Court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realise that administrative authorities have expertise in the filed of administration while the Court does not. In the words of Neely VJ (Scc p.681, para 82). "82.... I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a Judge ... I am not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker, expect Judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of a public utility operation." It is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator." 11. In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 511 , wherein at paragraph No.40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held thus:- "The justification given for judicial activism is that the executive and legislature have failed in performing their functions. Even if this allegations is true, does it justify the judiciary in taking over the functions of the legislature or executive? In our opinion it does not: firstly, because that would be in violation of the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, and secondly, because the judiciary has neither the expertise nor the resources for this. If the legislature or executive are not functioning properly it is for the people to correct the defects by exercising their franchise properly in the next elections and voting for candidates who will fulfil their expectations, or by other lawful means e.g., peaceful demonstrations and agitations, but the remedy is surely not by the judiciary in taking over the functions of the other organs." 12. There is no merit in the writ petition. Though writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is an advocate, we refrain from doing so, hoping that in future, petitioner would not indulge in filing such writ petitions, which are not called for. Writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.