Himachal Pradesh High Court Refuses To Interfere With State's Policy Refusing Permission To Open New Veterinary Institutes

The bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Mr. Justice Virender Singh observed,

"The raison d'être of discretionary power is that it promotes the decision-maker to respond appropriately to the demands of a particular situation. When the decision- taking is policy-based, judicial approach to interfere with such decision making becomes narrower".

The petitioner submitted that he had applied for essentiality certificate for opening of Para Veterinary Institute with intake of 100 seats which came to be rejected on the basis of the impugned instructions dated May 05th 2022.

According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents was highly arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted, as the so-called executive instructions dated 05.05.2022 cannot over-ride the provisions of the H.P. Para Veterinary Council Act, 2010 and the Rules framed thereunder.

In his plea the petitioner prayed for directions upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for opening of the Para Veterinary Institution, in accordance with provision of Section 19 of the H. P Para Veterinary Council Act 2010, without any requirement of essentiality certificate, within time bound manner.

The petitioner further sought setting aside of the office order dated May 05th 2022 and October 18th 2022.

After examining the record the bench noted that the impugned instructions only communicate the policy decision taken by the Government whereby it has been decided not to grant permission to the Veterinary Pharmacist Institutes in order to bring uniformity and curtail the mushroom growth of Veterinary Pharmacist Institutes, as it leaves no scope of employment to the diploma holders, in future.

Observing that the courts should refrain from interfering with the policy decision unless a policy decision taken by the government is demonstratively capricious or arbitrary or suffers from vice of discrimination or infringes any statutes or provisions of the constitution, the bench explained that It is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular policy is vice or whether better public policy can be involved.

"Nor are the Courts inclined to strike down the policy at the behest of the petitioner, merely because it has been urged that a different policy could have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical", the bench pointed.

Elaborating further on the matter the bench observed that Courts do not and cannot act as an appellate authority examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor the courts advise to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining the policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizen or is opposed to any statutory provisions or manifestly arbitrary, it underscored.

The bench further said that no doubt the state has enacted the Veterinary Council Act, 2010 and the Rules but that does not either mean that the State Government is obliged or bound to make admission to the course only because the Act and Rules are in place.

In view of the same the bench found the petition misconceived and accordingly dismissed the same at the threshold.

Case Title: Batt Educational Society Vs State of H. P. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 16

Click Here To Read/Download Order