JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 5269/2017. I have also heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel assisted by Mr. B. Bagchi, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner No. 2 in WP(C) No. 468/2017. Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel has appeared for the respondent Nos. 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 44, 47, 48, 55, 56, 57, 58, 70, 79, 89, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 107, 111, 113, 114, 115 and 116 whereas, Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel has appeared for the respondent No. 78. Mr. P.K. Borah, learned counsel has appeared for respondent Nos. 11, 20, 32, 35, 40, 41, 58, 65 and 103. I have also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as well as Mr. D.C. Borah, learned Central Govt. Counsel, appearing for the official respondents. Both these writ petitions are founded on inter-connected facts raising certain identical questions of law and hence, I propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment. 2. The essential facts necessary for appreciating the controversy involved in both the writ petitions are briefly narrated herein below:- (a) The Director General of Doordarshan, Prasar Bharati, had earlier issued a set of guidelines in the year 2011 for processing and approval of commissioned programmes for telecast in the North East (NE) Channels of the Doordarshan. The guidelines of 2011, inter alia, laid down that 75% of the notified programmes would be earmarked exclusively for the residents of North East whereas the remaining 25% were meant for open competition on merit. The processing fee for evaluating each of those programmes was fixed at Rs. 5000/-. (b) The guidelines of 2011 were replaced by a new set of guidelines for the commissioned programmes for telecast in North East DD Channel which were uploaded in the official website of the Directorate General, Doordarshan, Prasar Bharati, on 28.12.2016. As per clause 4.7 of the new guidelines (here-in-after referred to as the "guidelines of 2016") 50% of the notified programmes were reserved for the North East residents and the remaining 50% were left open for general category. Clause 7 of the guidelines of 2016 had also enhanced the processing fee for evaluating each programme to Rs. As per clause 4.7 of the new guidelines (here-in-after referred to as the "guidelines of 2016") 50% of the notified programmes were reserved for the North East residents and the remaining 50% were left open for general category. Clause 7 of the guidelines of 2016 had also enhanced the processing fee for evaluating each programme to Rs. 25,000/-. (c) Clause 8.1 of the revised guidelines provides that evaluation of the programmes would be done by a six member committee to be headed by a Chairperson and each committee will have one member not below the rank of Joint Secretary from the Ministry of DoNER. As per Clause 8.1, the Doordarshan may ask the applicant/producer to be present in person and make presentation of the programme proposal submitted by him/her. That apart, Clause 16.2 of the guidelines of 2016 provides that such producers who would lodge complaints against the commissioning undertaken by the Doordarshan would be disqualified from commissioning for a period of two years if the complaint is found to be frivolous or mischievous. (d) Clause 16.6 of the new guidelines further lays down that a regular employee of a private T.V. Channel operating in India is not permitted to produce any programme for Prasar Bharati. (e) Following the guidelines of 2016, the Prasar Bharati had issued a "Request for Proposal" (RFP) on 28.12.2016 inviting program proposals from reputed producers/production houses for telecast in the upcoming satellite channel viz. "DD Arunprabha" to be operated from the State of Arunachal Pradesh under fixed budget mode of commissioned programme. (f) The notification dated 28.12.2016 indicated seven categories or "genre" in respect of which RFPs had been called for, indicating the duration of the episodes in terms of minutes and also the episodic price in lakhs. The seven "genre" indicated in the RFP dated 28.12.2016 are (i) Daily Soap/Serials, (ii) Thrillers, (iii) Mythological Serials, (iv) Telefilms, (v) Quiz Shows/Magazine Formats with celebrity anchor person, (vi) Travelogue: (a) Documentary format, and (b) With Celebrity, and (vii) Reality Show. (g) The challenge made in WP(C) No. 468/2017 pertains to the validity of the clauses 4.7, 7, 8.1, 8.2, 16.2 and 16.6 of the guidelines of 2016 on the ground that those were not only discriminatory but were also contrary to the policy of the Government which is aimed at protecting the interest of the producers from the North East India. (h) W.P.(c) No WP(C) No. 5267/2017 has been instituted by six petitioners who are the sole proprietors of the respective production houses engaged in the business of making films, TV serials, Documentary, Travel Shows etc. All these petitioners had participated in the evaluation process in response to the RFP dated 28.12.2016 and were amongst the 309 shortlisted production houses for final selection of the commissioned programmes to be telecast in "DD Arunprabha". However, the proposals of all these writ petitioners did not find place in the final select list published by the respondents on 21.07.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners have approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5267/2017 assailing the legality and validity of the select list dated 21.07.2017 as well as the process of selection undertaken by the authorities. 3. It would be pertinent to mention herein that W.P. (c) 468 of 2017 was originally instituted by the Producers Council, which is an association of empanelled private producers of Doordarshan having its registered office at Lakhtokia, Guwahati in the district of Kamrup (Metro), as the writ petitioner No. 1 and its General Secretary, viz., Sri Irsadul Hussain, as the petitioner No. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 had filed I.A.(Civil) No. 3215/2017 with a prayer to strike off its name from WP(C) No. 468/2017. Taking note of the prayer made by the applicant, this Court had passed an order dated 06.11.2017 in I.A.(Civil) No. 3215/2017 arising out of WP(C) No. 468/2017 striking off the name of the writ petitioner No. 1. Consequently, this writ petition is being pursued by the petitioner No. 2 in his individual capacity. 4. The official respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavits controverting the allegations brought about by the petitioners in both the writ petitions. 5. Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 468/2017 has vehemently argued that the very purpose and object of the 2011 guidelines issued by the Prasar Bharati was to promote and nurture the interest of the producers from the North East by providing a platform to the deserving producers to compete at the national level. Having regard to the professed policy objective of the Government, the reduction of the reserve quota for the North East from 75% to 50% and the enhancement of processing fee from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. Having regard to the professed policy objective of the Government, the reduction of the reserve quota for the North East from 75% to 50% and the enhancement of processing fee from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 25,000/- was not only discriminatory but the same was also in conflict with the original policy decision of the Government in the matter. By referring to clause 7 of the guidelines of 2016, which raises the processing fee to Rs. 25,000/-, Mr. Saikia contends that the aforesaid amount is non-refundable and would have to be paid separately in case of each of the programme proposal thereby making it practically impossible for the producers from the North Eastern Region to come up with multiple proposals so as to showcase their talent. That apart, submits Mr. Saikia, the requirement of the individual producer making presentation in person, as imposed by clause 8.2, is an onerous condition for the producers from North East since evaluation of the proposals are made at the headquarters of Prasar Bharati at New Delhi, far away from northeast. 6. Contending that the cost that would be involved for a producer from the North East to present a proposal would be far greater as compared to the producers coming from the other parts of the country and therefore, the enhancement of the processing fee would operate as a prohibiting factor for the local producers. The learned counsel has therefore, questioned the very rationale behind such a change in the policy. Mr. Saikia has also assailed Clause 16.2 of the revised guidelines by contending that the very purpose behind inserting this clause is to hold out a threat to the producers from this region thereby restricting their right to participation, which is in clear breach of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 7. Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 5267/2017, has assailed the select list dated 21.07.2017 by contending that as per the guidelines of 2016 it was incumbent upon the authorities to stick to the norm of 50% programmes exclusively for the residents of North East but in the present case, there has been a marked departure. According to Mr. According to Mr. Choudhury, the 56 persons who had been selected in the North East category ought to have been included in the list of open category in terms of their merit ranking, in which event, the writ petitioners herein would have found their names appearing in the select list meant for North East category. 8. The learned senior counsel has also assailed the selection process by contending that as per clause 8 of the revised guidelines, each Evaluation Committee must consist of six members to be headed by a Chairperson and must have two official members not below the rank of Joint Secretary including the concerned Joint Secretary from the Ministry of DoNER. But in the present case, submits Mr. Choudhury, the representative of DoNER was not present in any of the Committees as a result of which the evaluation had been conducted by a five members committee in clear contravention of Clause 8.1 of the guidelines of 2016. 9. The learned senior counsel further contends that there is not only complete lack of transparency in the selection process but some of the firms which have failed to appear before the Evaluation Committee or make a presentation as per the clauses of the guidelines were also included in the select list. To buttress his arguments Mr. Choudhury submits that the respondent No. 43, viz., M/S ANS-ANTAR DASIYA SANGSTHA, had furnished two different addresses in order to get the benefit of being considered from both the groups and was evidently shortlisted by ignoring such foul play committed by it. Mr. Choudhury, however, fairly submits that the allegations made against the respondent No. 20 in the writ petition are not pressed by him and therefore, need not be considered by this Court. 10. Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel, spearheading the arguments on behalf of the private respondents, has contended that the challenge made in WP(C) No. 468/2017 is incompetent after the association itself i.e. the original writ petitioner No. 1 had withdrawn from the proceedings. He submits that the issues raised in the said writ petition being matters of policy decision of the Government the same, cannot be made the subject matter of judicial review. Referring to the plea raised in the other writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 5267/2017, Mr. He submits that the issues raised in the said writ petition being matters of policy decision of the Government the same, cannot be made the subject matter of judicial review. Referring to the plea raised in the other writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 5267/2017, Mr. Dutta submits that the writ petitioners having taken part in the selection process without raising any objection and having failed to qualify therein would be estopped from questioning the legality and validity of the selection process. On merit, Mr. Dutta submits that the Chairman of each of the Committees were all persons of repute from the field of film and television and their integrity is beyond any shadow of doubt. The evaluation of the programmes, according to Mr. Dutta, have been carried out on the basis of objective criteria and marks were awarded to all the shortlisted candidates by following a transparent method. There is nothing in the writ petition, according to Mr. Dutta, so as to indicate any anomaly in awarding the marks. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Dutta, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is required to be dismissed with cost. 11. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel and Mr. P.K. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the other private respondents, have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Dutta. 12. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, has produced the records to contend that a completely fair and transparent process has been followed by the authorities while evaluating the proposals. By referring to the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Mr. Keyal submits that the Chairpersons of all the Committees are all external candidates who are not in the pay roll of the Doordarshan. By referring to the bio-data of the said persons, Mr. Keyal submits that all the candidates are persons of impeccable reputation and their integrity is beyond doubt. Mr. Keyal further submits that all the Evaluation Committees were originally constituted with six members including one representative from the DoNER. But since DoNER had expressed its inability to depute five officials due to shortage of manpower, the Committee had to be constituted with five members. Mr. Keyal further submits that all the Evaluation Committees were originally constituted with six members including one representative from the DoNER. But since DoNER had expressed its inability to depute five officials due to shortage of manpower, the Committee had to be constituted with five members. However, DoNER had sent two senior officials to brief the Chairpersons and the members of the Evaluation Committee and on such basis, the five committees carried out the evaluation by following a transparent process. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 14. As regards the controversy raised in WP (C) No. 468/2017, I find from the record that the petitioner No. 2 has challenged the revised guidelines which introduces a change in the policy of the Doordarshan by prescribing new guidelines of 2016 so as to process/evaluate the programmes meant for telecast in the North East Doordarshan. Law is well settled that the right of the State to change its policy from time to time under the changing circumstances cannot be questioned [see-State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 ]. In the case of Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 2 SCC 588 the Supreme Court had observed that a policy decision may be subjected to change from time to time and only because a change is effected, the same by itself does not render a policy decision to be illegal or otherwise vitiated in law. 15. In the case of Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board reported in (2016) 4 SCC 134 , the Supreme Court has held that the question of granting concessional tariff of electricity for five years was a matter of policy and it was for the State and not for the court to determine as to what should be the policy at different point of time. That was a case where the appellant, which had set up a caustic soda plant in the State of Tamil Nadu, had assailed the demand raised on account of electricity tariff on the ground that the State had promised concessional tariff for five years from the date of starting commercial production and according to the appellant, the said promise could not have been revisited by any contrary action. 16. 16. It is trite that policy decisions lie in the domain of executive function. The scope of interference with a policy decision of the State or its instrumentality by the Court in exercise of power of judicial review is very limited. The writ court would not interfere in policy matters unless it is found that the action of the State is contrary to the statutory provisions or against the public policy or when the implementation of the policy decision violates the fundamental rights of the citizen. 17. As noticed above, present is not a case that falls in any of the categorises mentioned above. The clauses inserted in the guidelines of 2016 lie in the realm of policy decision of the executive and none of the clauses contained therein can be held to be contrary to any statute or public policy. It would be open for the Prasar Bharati to bring in changes in its guidelines depending upon the changed circumstances and the Writ Court cannot sit in appeal over such policy decisions of the State. Moreover, the petitioner No. 2 has admittedly not participated in the selection process conducted by the respondents pursuant to the RFP dated 28.12.2016 and to such extent he is not aggrieved with the application of any of the clauses contained in the guidelines of 2016. In view of the above, no locus can be recognized in favour of the said petitioner to maintain the writ petition No. 468/2017 in its present form. 18. Coming to the issues raised in WP(C) No. 5267/2017, I find from the record that in response to the RFP dated 28.12.2016, as many as 1104 proposals were submitted by various aspirants including the six writ petitioners. The Screening Committee had examined all the proposals between 15.05.2017 to 26.05.2017 whereafter, 390 proposals including those submitted by the petitioners were shortlisted. These 390 proposals pertaining to the seven different genres were thereafter, evaluated by the five Evaluation Committees constituted for the purpose. Upon completion of the said process, altogether 115 proposals were included in the final list which was uploaded in the DD India website on 21.07.2017. Out of these 115 proposals, 59 proposals were from the "open category" whereas 56 proposals were selected from the "North Eastern Region category". 19. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. Upon completion of the said process, altogether 115 proposals were included in the final list which was uploaded in the DD India website on 21.07.2017. Out of these 115 proposals, 59 proposals were from the "open category" whereas 56 proposals were selected from the "North Eastern Region category". 19. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 it has been categorically stated that the ratio of 50% earmarked for the North East India category could not be strictly followed in this case since the Evaluation Committee did not find suitable programme from the producers of North East in the genre of magazine. As a result of the same, only 48.69% programmes could be finally selected from the North East category. The said assertion of the official respondents could not be denied by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 20. Perusal of the records produced by Mr. Keyal goes to show that each of the writ petitioner herein had been awarded marks in respect of their proposals under different headings by the individual members of the Evaluation Committee and on the basis of the aggregate of the marks so awarded, the final select list was prepared. The record does not indicate any noticeable anomaly in the marking pattern. There is also no allegation of malafide against the committee members. After examining the records, this court is of the view that present is not a case where any producer securing lower marks than the petitioners in either category, have been included in the final select list published on 21.07.2017 so as to deprive any genuine candidate. 21. In so far as the allegation made by the petitioners' counsel regarding some of the producers having relied on duel entity by furnishing different addresses so as to get the benefit of both categories, the official respondents have stated in their affidavit that the inclusion of the producers in the list dated 21.07.2017 was provisional and their antecedents would be subjected to further scrutiny. Therefore, the matter would be properly examined by the authorities in due course of time. 22. I also find from the record that some of the petitioners had submitted representation addressed to the Director General, Doordarshan on 31.07.2017 questioning the select list dated 21.07.2017 on various grounds including those mentioned in these writ petitions. Therefore, the matter would be properly examined by the authorities in due course of time. 22. I also find from the record that some of the petitioners had submitted representation addressed to the Director General, Doordarshan on 31.07.2017 questioning the select list dated 21.07.2017 on various grounds including those mentioned in these writ petitions. The said representations were duly considered by the authorities and disposed of by giving proper reasoning justifying their decision. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out to any shortcoming in the orders issued by the Additional Director General of Doordarshan disposing of the individual representations submitted by the writ petitioners. 23. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on examination of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities have followed a transparent procedure in evaluating the various proposals submitted by the producers both from within and outside the North East. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the selection process requiring interference of this Court. It appears that the petitioners having participated in the process could not get themselves selected since the proposals ranking higher on merit had been selected and had been included in the final list dated 21.7.2017. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the matter. Both the writ petitions are therefore, held to be devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to cost.