Shiv Shankar Dayal And Ors. vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

Held

The Court held that it has very limited jurisdiction to interfere with a policy decision taken by the appropriate authority unless it violates constitutional provisions, statutory provisions, or suffers from malafides. The amended guidelines, including the introduction of examinations and fees, were considered a policy decision aimed at improving the quality of service delivery at e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres. The petitioners did not challenge the respondents' authority to amend the selection procedure, nor did they allege malafides or violation of any statute. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India & Ors., the Court emphasized that courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on policy decisions and should not interfere if a considered policy decision is not in conflict with law or is not mala fide. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it in limine, following the precedent set in a similar case.

Facts

The petitioners, who are e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres Operators in Jalore District, Rajasthan, filed a writ petition challenging the procedure for selecting service providers to set up and manage e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres under the e-Mitra Project. This challenge was directed at an order dated 05.12.2017 issued by RajCOMP Info Services Ltd. The petitioners were aggrieved by amended guidelines, specifically Clause (f) concerning kiosk/LSP certification policy, which introduced mandatory examinations with fees and consequences for failure. A similar writ petition, SBCWP No.680/2018, filed by other e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres Operators, had already been dismissed by the Court on 19.01.2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can interfere with the policy decision of the appropriate authority to amend the guidelines for the selection of e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres Operators, particularly when the amendment aims to improve service delivery quality? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners are aggrieved by the amended guidelines, specifically the introduction of mandatory examinations and associated fees, which they believe negatively impacts their operations. (Implicitly, they argue the policy is unreasonable or arbitrary). Revenue/State's Contention: The amended guidelines were issued by the appropriate authority (RajCOMP Info Services Ltd.) with the intention of improving the quality of service delivery through the e-Mitra network. The respondents have the jurisdiction to amend these guidelines, and the action does not suffer from malafide or violation of any statute. They rely on the Supreme Court's decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India & Ors. regarding the limited scope of judicial interference in policy matters.