The Division bench of the HP HC while dealing with a case, where the petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of their application for opening a Para Veterinary Institute, noted that the Court does not interfere with the Policy decisions of the Government until and unless it is demonstratively capricious and the same cannot be done in the current case, since the policy decision of the government was neither illegal nor illogical.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner Society had applied for an essentiality certificate for the opening of a Para Veterinary Institute on 10.10.2022. This application was rejected through the order dt. 18.10.2022 on the basis of the instructions dt. 05.05.2022.
The petitioner contends that the actions of the respondents were highly arbitrary, illegal, and unwarranted, And the instructions dt. 05.05.2022 cannot override the provisions of the H.P. Para Veterinary Council Act, 2010, and the rules thereunder.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court first noted the instructions dt. 05.05.2022, according to which there was a Mushroom growth of Veterinary Pharmacist Institutes, and in the near future the scope of employment for Diploma Holders in the field as Veterinary pharmacists is limited. So, in order to bring uniformity and to curtail this mushrooming growth of the institutes, it was decided that no new permissions would be given to fresh institutes. And as it can be seen, the instructions were related to the policy decisions taken by the government.
Further in this regard, the court noted that it is a settled proposition of law that the Court shall refrain from interfering with the policy decision taken by the government. The court does not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executives unless they are faulted on certain grounds. The reason for such a division of powers is that it promotes the decision-maker to respond appropriately to the demands of a particular situation.
In regards to the current petition, the court found it to be ill-founded and based on a complete misunderstanding of the law. It was also noted that the State has enacted the H.P. Para Veterinary Council Act, 2010, but that does not mean that the state is obligated or bound to make admissions to the course only because the Act and the Rules are in place. Further, the court notes that the Government has taken the decision to not grant permission to new institutes and the reason for the same cannot be termed to be illegal or even illogical and just because the petitioner fulfills as well as qualifies the prerequisite conditions for granting of permission for opening of the institute does not create an obligation upon the respondents to grant permission.
Judgment of the Court:
The petition was found to be misconceived and it was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Batt Educational Society v. State of H.P. & Ors.
Coram: Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Virender Singh
Case No.: CWP No. 8455 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Aman Parth Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr.Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Y. W.Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr. J. S. Guleria, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
