ORDER (ORAL) With the appearance of Mr. Irfan Andleeb, learned Deputy Advocate General, caveat as lodged shall stand discharged. 2. The petitioners are registered Contractors with Public Health Engineering Department in various classes namely “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir Public Works (R& B) Department had earlier issued a notification dated 14th March, 2011 under SRO 82, in terms of which the limits upto which the works could be allotted to various classes of Contractors were mentioned. For example, Class “D” contractors would execute works upto Rupees Fifteen lacs. Class “C” between Rupees Five lacs to Rupees Twenty-five lacs. Class “B” between Rupees Ten lacs to Rupees Fifty lacs and Class “A” above Rupees Twenty-five lacs upto Rupees Three crores. There is another Class of contractors namely “Special Class” which could execute works any amount above Rupees Two crores. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved of Government Order No.460- PW(Hyd) of 2019 dated 06-12-2019 in regard to clause 2(c) & (d). According to these clauses all new projects/schemes henceforth would be executed on turnkey basis inclusive of all components i.e (civil, electrical, mechanical, procurement including of design and commissioning etc). The said contract would also include maintenance responsibility for five years. 4. Counsel for the petitioners urged that by implementation of the new policy, the petitioners who are competent to execute works only upto a particular limit would be prevented from executing the contracts inasmuch as the composite contracts would always value more than their financial limits prescribed in terms of the Government Order dated 14.03.2011. It was vehemently urged that the order impugned has the effect of rendering jobless not only the petitioners but all other similarly situated contractors. 5. Counsel for the respondents, who is on caveat, on the other hand opposed the prayer made. It was stated that the Government order impugned dated 06-12-2019 is in-fact a part of the reformation exercise initiated by the Government to bring the efficiency and cohesion in the execution of works. It is stated that it is for the first time that the tender document would also prescribe condition for maintenance of works executed for a period of five years which would bring about responsibility among the executing contractors who would then be forced to execute works upto a minimum standard which till now was missing. It is stated that it is for the first time that the tender document would also prescribe condition for maintenance of works executed for a period of five years which would bring about responsibility among the executing contractors who would then be forced to execute works upto a minimum standard which till now was missing. It was further stated that till now the tendering process was dilatory and that for executing one single contract the same was sub-divided into civil, electrical, mechanical, procurement including design and commissioning etc., and similar other contracts which would not only create confusion but cause delay as well. It was also urged that by adopting the old procedure, as experience showed, one contractor would blame the other in the faulty execution of work and ultimately the system suffered. It is however submitted that the allegations that the petitioners would be rendered jobless is an exaggerated statement as there are other smaller contracts also which will be advertised by the department from time to time for which the petitioners would be competent and eligible to bid. 6. Briefly stated the grievance of the petitioners is primarily directed towards the following conditions in the policy. “1. It has been observed that poor and inefficient tendering process in the PHE department is leading to inordinate delay and wastage of resources in the implementation of Water Supply Schemes. The tender inviting authorities are in practice of splitting the projects/schemes in multiple works resulting in fragmented tendering. Works are distributed to multiple agencies or departments (Mechanical Division, Drilling Division, Civil Division, Procurement Division and Power Development Department) who invite separate tenders for each work. All these works of particular project/schemes are interdependent and due to lack of coordination, failure of tendering process or laxity by any of the executing agency harms the overall completion of the project/scheme on time. 2. The department after taking into account various aspects of the present tendering process issues the following directions for strict compliance by all concerned for efficient and timely execution of works:- a …. b ….. c. All new projects/schemes henceforth shall be executed on turnkey basis inclusive of all components (civil, electrical, mechanical, procurement including of design and commissioning etc). The contract shall also include maintenance responsibility of five years from the date of actual commissioning of the project or end of Defect Liability Period (DLP) whichever is later. b ….. c. All new projects/schemes henceforth shall be executed on turnkey basis inclusive of all components (civil, electrical, mechanical, procurement including of design and commissioning etc). The contract shall also include maintenance responsibility of five years from the date of actual commissioning of the project or end of Defect Liability Period (DLP) whichever is later. Wherever possible the contract should also include operation clause for the five years. d. Where turnkey contract is not possible for any reason (to be recorded in writing), only one composite tender shall be floated for a scheme or project. The tender should include all the components of the scheme i.e. mechanical, civil, electrical etc. In the event any part of the scheme/works stands already tendered or executed, all the remaining works should be club bed including the provision of material. However, the five-year maintenance clause must be including even in such cases…….” 7. Since the petitioners have challenged the policy framed by the Government vide order impugned dated 06-12-2019,it is necessary to understand the scope of interference in the matter of policy by the courts under Article 226. 8. The scope of judicial review and policy matters is no longer res integra. The said issued was dealt in detail in case “Milk Producers Cooperative Marketing Processing Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, 2018 SLJ 719”and it is worthwhile to extract paragraph Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32 as under:- “26. The scope of judicial review in policy matters is no longer res Integra. It is settled law that the Court would not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the executive unless the same can be faulted on the grounds of malafides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, in which case the policy would render itself to be declared unconstitutional. In State of Punjab& Ors. Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and others; (1998) 4 SCC 117 , it was held thus:- “…….When Government forms its policy, it is based on number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion, it would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out affidavit. The Court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to the executive. It is also based on expert opinion, it would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out affidavit. The Court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article 21 when it restricts reimbursement on account of its financial constraints.” 27. On similar lines was the pronouncement of Apex court in case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and others; (2001) 3 SCC 635 , wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “The challenge, thus, in effect, is to the executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. It is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds on mala fide, unreasonableness, Arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to judgment of the executive. The courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State.” 28. In Balco Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and others; (2002) 2 SCC 333 , the Apex court in paragraph 92 & 98 held as under:- “92. “In a democracy, it is the prerogative of ech elected Government to follow it’s own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegibility committed in the execution of policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court. 98. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegibility committed in the execution of policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court. 98. In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the Courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the Court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself.” 29. This view has recently been reiterated by the Apex Court in Parisons Aggrotech Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2015) 9 SCC 657 , the Court observed as under:- “14. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives. Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and; it is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a decision of the Executive as the policy making is the domain of the Executive and the decision in question has passed the test of the judicial review.” 31. Since overwhelming reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on para 16 of Union of India Vs. International Trading Co. 2003 SC 3983, it would be relevant to refer briefly to the same. In this judgment the court reiterated the principle that if a policy or action of the Government fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. It proceeded to hold in para 16 thus: “16. International Trading Co. 2003 SC 3983, it would be relevant to refer briefly to the same. In this judgment the court reiterated the principle that if a policy or action of the Government fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. It proceeded to hold in para 16 thus: “16. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammeled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on by any ulterior criterial……………..” 32. There is absolutely no dispute with the correctness of the ratio supra. It is correct to suggest that a “change in policy” would as much have to satisfy the test of Article 14. However, it needs to be emphasized that while dismissing the writ petitions, the Writ Court certainly did not hold that the policy framed was not at all subject to judicial review or was not amenable to the test of nationality or reasonableness or non-arbitrariness. On the other hand, it proceeded to hold, on the basis of the facts and material on record that the policy reflected in the impugned communication dated 12.07.2017 did not suffer from any perversity.” 9. Having heard counsel for the parties, in my opinion the order impugned deserves no interference. The decision taken by the Government is a policy decision. The reasons mentioned in the said Government order and those urged by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrarily incorporated or in any manner are said to be suffering from perversity. While there may be some contracts which may go beyond financial limits of petitioners as fixed by the Government Order dated 14.03.2011, yet it cannot be said that there will be no contracts in the near future which would be within their financial limits. In addition to this nothing prevents class “C” contractor to further seek an upgradation and move in the higher classes which would otherwise enable him to execute contracts of a higher value. The categorisation, therefore, is not permanent forever and could change in accordance with the rules and established practices. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion the Government decision does not warrant any interference. The categorisation, therefore, is not permanent forever and could change in accordance with the rules and established practices. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion the Government decision does not warrant any interference. The petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed along-with connected MP.