Judgment and Order : M. R. Pathak, J. 1) Heard Mr. Angshuman Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Department of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent No.2, Mr. M. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 & 11, Mr. K. Loya, learned counsel for the private respondent No.8 and Mr. D. Laji, learned counsel for the private respondent No.9. 2) The petitioners, namely, Silen Valley People’s Welfare Forum represented by its Chairman and All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (APSU) represented by its General Secretary have filed this PIL jointly praying amongst others, (i) for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to set aside and quash the impugned decision of the respondent authorities in granting its approval to the alignment proposed by the private respondent Nos. 8 and 9 for construction of the Taliha-Tato Road via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River; (ii) for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refrain/forebear from giving effect to the impugned decision of the respondent authorities in granting its approval to the alignment proposed by the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 for construction of the Taliha-Tato Road via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River; (iii) for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the Land Acquisition Proceeding under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 arising out of the undated Notification for acquisition of 214.61 acres of land in Taliha to Tato and all consequential actions of the respondent authorities emanating therefrom and (iv) for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant its approval to the alternate alignment proposed by the petitioners for construction of the Taliha-Tato Road via Payeng through route of Nimpu village through Silin river. 3) In this PIL the petitioners are seeking for a direction from the Court to the respondent authorities for an alternative survey of the road from Taliha to Tato via Nimpu through Silin River, stating that presently, the proposed road, for which the respondent Nos. 3) In this PIL the petitioners are seeking for a direction from the Court to the respondent authorities for an alternative survey of the road from Taliha to Tato via Nimpu through Silin River, stating that presently, the proposed road, for which the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have submitted the Detail Project Reports(DPR) for the road from Taliha to Tato via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River are without any field visit or assessment of any alternative road and without affording the local community to participate in the decision making process, thereby such reports of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are arbitrary and without any rationality. 4) The contentions of the petitioners are that they are seeking such alternative survey for the change of the Taliha to Tato Road via Nimpu through Silin River and not the Taliha to Tato Road via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River on the ground of (a) feasibility of distance, (b) shorter duration in completion period that is in the interest and benefit of public and (c) the decision of the respondents. 5) The petitioners also stated that the respondent authorities are taking arbitrary decisions since the proposed construction of the said Taliha to Tato Road via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River for which survey has already been done, was undertaken earlier in the year 2008 but it could not be completed and was discontinued on 31.03.2017 on account of various issues and that said proposed route for the Taliha-Tato Road has been finalized without affording an opportunity to the local community of participation in the decision making process and also without carrying out a joint survey. 6) According to the petitioners the proposed construction of the said Road from Taliha to Tato via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River is not the best and most suitable route for connecting the two points as it is having many drawbacks and that the best possible route for connecting the two points Taliha and Tato is via Nimpu through the Silin River. According to them the advantages for constructing the Taliha to Tato road via Nimpu through the Silin River are that (i) their distance between the two points would be greatly reduced that would result in less expenditure and would save the public exchequer from unwarranted outlay; (ii) the duration of the project for constructing the said road will be reduced; (iii) the terrain and topographical features of the route are suitable for carrying of the construction and (iv) non demand of any compensation by the villagers. 7) While issuing notice to the respondents in this PIL,the Court on 12.10.2023 in the interim directed to maintain status quo in respect of the acquisition process undertaken for construction of the road from Taliha to Tato via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River as on said date, i.e., 12.10.2023, which is still in force. 8) During pendency of this PIL, by filing an additional affidavit on 04.11.2024 the petitioners have placed on record that the Hon’ble Minister of Commerce & Industries (Industries, Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Textile & Handicrafts, Trade and Commerce and Sericulture), Labour & Employment, Information, Public Relations & Printing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh convened a meeting on 01.11.2024 at 11:30 hours in its chamber at Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat to discuss regarding the delay in execution of Taliha-Tato road [Frontier Highway (NH-913)] and in that regard the concerned OSD to said Minister on 29.10.2024 issued a circular. 9) Pursuant to the same, both the petitioners participated in the said meeting on 01.11.2024, which was also attended by the Chief Engineer, Project Arunank (BRO) and the Director Contract, Project Arunank (BRO). 10) In the said meeting the petitioners demanded for two-lane road on the existing single-lane road constructed under the PMGSY (Pradhan MantriGramya Sadak Yojana) via Paktung, Tarba, Kaji, Haning, Pilung Malling and Nimpu villages urging for linking and connecting the said PMGSY road from Nimpu village to the Taliha-Tato Frontier Highway (alignment of the road concerned of which the Border Roads Organisation (BRO)and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways ( MoRTH) have already granted their approval), stating that the proposed road by the petitioners can be used as an alternative road for different purposes as well as for socio-economic developments of the people and the State as a whole. 11) The petitioners in the said affidavit also stated that there has been an amicable solution to the issues involved in this PIL as the respondents have accepted their proposal/demand for the proposed two-lane road by the BRO and the concerned Hon’ble Minister for which the fund will come either through the Ministry of Defence (MoD) or the MoRTH. 12) Petitioners stated that in lieu of two-lane road by the BRO/MoRTH they will not further contest the present PIL and that the Border Roads Organization will continue to implement its already approved alignment. 13) In their additional affidavit filed on 04.11.2024, the petitioners have also annexed the Office Memorandum dated 01.11.2024 containing the Minutes of the said meeting dated 01.11.2024 as well as a sketch map showing the Taliha to Tato road via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River that has been already approved by the MoD and MoRTH as well as the Taliha to Tato road via Nimpu through the Silin River where there is a requirement of construction of fresh roads and further widening of existing single-lane road constructed under PMGSY that is to be widened to two lanes. 14) As per the Minutes of the said meeting dated 01.11.2024, the petitioners are to withdraw the present PIL on conditions that ? (a) the concerned Minister who convened the meeting, the BRO and the PWD shall initiate a proposal for two-lane in existing PMGSY road from 0.00 Km to Nimpu that will be connected to Taliha-Tato main Frontier Highway (road alignment of which has been approved by the BRO and MoRTH) as an alternative road for socio-economic development of the people in particular and the State as a whole that can be used for the defence purpose. (b) the concerned local MLA cum the Minister concerned will initiate the proposal through the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Minority Affairs, Government of India to the MoRTH and Government of India and (c) Petitioners will not further contest for litigation in present PIL and that the BRO will continue to implement its already approved road as per present technical alignment. 15) From the various affidavits exchanged by the parties of this proceeding,we have seen that the road from Taliha to Tato via Payeng through the route of Sissi/Sike River is a strategic Frontier Highway Road, i.e., NH-913 (notified in the Gazette of India) along with International Border of the Country in Upper Subansiri District and West Siang District of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The construction of the said Frontier Highway is aimed to provide a faster communication network for security forces,connecting various strategic points, to strengthen the defence of India as well as enabling reverse migration of habitation towards border areas of Arunachal Pradesh that is crucial for protection of International Boundary and National Interest. 16) From the affidavits, annexures, the communications placed by the parties before the Court, we have noticed that the road proposed from Taliha to Tato via Payeng through the route of Sissi/Sike River possesses strategic importance for the defence of India and its alignment is as per the requirement of the Ministry of Defence. 17) We have also noticed that the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways; the Department of Border Roads Organization, Ministry of Defence and the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL), a Government of India undertaking are the stake holders of the said road from Taliha to Tato via Payeng through the route of Sissi/Sike. 18) In a Public Interest Litigation relating to the proposed shifting of the Special Service Bureau (SSB) from North Eastern region to Indo-Nepal Border, after taking into account of the decisions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Shri Sachidanand Pandey and Another -Vs- State of West Bengal and Others, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 295 , (ii)West Bengal Housing Board and Others. -Vs- Brijendra Prasad Gupta and Others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 207 , (iii) Krishnan Kakkanth -Vs- Government of Kerala and Others, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 495 , (iv) State of Punjab and Others -Vs- Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Others, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 117 , (v) Malik Brothers -Vs- Narendra Dadhich and Others, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 552 , (vi) Narmada Bachao Andolan etc. -Vs- Union of India and Others, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664 ; a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jugal Baruah-Vs-Union of India & Others, reported in 2002 (3) GLT 99 highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in matters of policy decisions and emphasized that a policy decision adopted in the national interest on security reasons is immune from judicial review. 19) In the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited -Vs- Union of India,reported in (2023) 13 SCC 401 , the Hon’ble Apex Cort have held that —It is the executive wing and not the judicial wing that has the knowledge of India’s geo-political relationships to assess if an action is in the interest of India’s national security. 20) In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners’ contention as noted above is that there is a requirement of alternative survey of the road from Taliha to Tato via Nimpu through Silin River. According to them there are advantages for constructing the said road on the grounds that (a) the distance between the two points Taliha to Tato via Nimpu through Silin River would be greatly reduced and it would result in less expenditure and would save the public exchequer from unwarranted outlay; (b) the duration of the project for constructing the said road will be reduced; (c) the terrain and topographical features of the route are suitable for carrying out the construction, (d) non demand of any compensation by the villagers, (e) shall have 100% sun light, (f) lesser impact on the environment owing to lesser forest cover and (g) approximately 30 Kilometers of the proposed road by the partitioners have already been constructed under the scheme of PMGSY. 21) According to the petitioners the proposed construction of the Taliha to Tato Road via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River, for which survey has already been done, was undertaken earlier in the year 2008 but it could not be completed and was discontinued on 31.03.2017 on account of various issues and that said proposed route has been finalized without affording an opportunity to the local community of participation in the decision making process and also without carrying out a joint survey. The petitioners further stated that the said proposed road from Taliha to Tato via Payeng through the route of Sissi/Sike River is not the best as it is having many drawbacks and not feasible due to very tough terrain, long distance, deep gorges, road orientation problem, irregular-road-gradient and large numbers of major and minor bridges, which will be an impediment to the future and for socio economic development of people in particular. According to the petitioners the most suitable and possible route for connecting the two points Taliha to Tato is via Nimpu through the Silin River. 22) In the case in hand, admittedly it is not the case of the petitioners that the policy decision of the Government for the proposed construction of the Taliha to Tato Road via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River,is unconstitutional and/or illegal nor that any constitutional or statutory rights whatsoever either of the petitioners or the people of the locality of Taliha to Tato road via Nimpu through Silin River have been contravened by such proposal of construction of the Taliha to Tato Road via Payeng through the route of Sissi/Sike River. 23) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Oil Extraction -Vs- State of M.P., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 592 , with regard to policy matters vis a vis judicial review, have held that —The executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes into conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not outstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India. The supremacy of each of the three organs of the State i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary in their respective fields of operation needs to be emphasised. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in outstepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The democratic set-up to which the polity is so deeply committed cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields. 24) In the case of India Cement Ltd. -Vs- Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 356 have held that —Even if some persons are at a disadvantage and have suffered losses on account of the formulation and implementation of the government policy, that is not by itself sufficient ground for interference with the governmental action. 25) In the case in hand, there is no claim by the petitioners regarding violation or infringement of the Constitutional rights guaranteed to the citizens. The policy decision to construct the Taliha to Tato Road via Payeng through the route of Sissi/Sike Riverby the respondent authorities is in the greater public interest having strategic importance for the defence of India, where its alignment is as per the requirement of the Defence Ministry. Security of the nation is paramount and there cannot be any compromise with national security. Moreover, such conditional withdrawal of this PIL made by the petitioners, noted above,also cannot be considered. 26) For the reasons above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the policy decision of the respondent authorities for proposed construction of the Taliha to Tato Road via Payeng through the route of Sissi/Sike River. 27) The interim direction issued earlier on 12.10.2023 to maintain status quo in respect of the acquisition process undertaken for construction of the road from Taliha to Tato via Payeng through route of Sissi/Sike River as on 12.10.2023 is hereby recalled/stands vacated. 28) This PIL,accordingly stands dismissed. 29) However, it is made clear that with regard to the petitioners’ proposed road from Taliha to Tato via Nimpu through Silin River, it will be up to the respondent authorities, more particularly the State respondents, to take a decision in that regard.