Prateek Jalan JUDGMENT
Prateek Jalan, J.
1. The challenge in this petition is to a tender dated 27.06.2018, whereby the Union of India has invited bids from prospective concessionaires to take over the operations and management of the Delhi Milk Scheme [hereafter referred to as "DMS"] for a period of thirty years. The petitioners claim to be a registered Union of workers of DMS and its President.
2. DMS was established in 1959 and functions as a subordinate office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare of the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Government"). Its objectives are to supply milk and dairy products to the citizens of Delhi, whilst assuring remunerative prices to milk producers. It has a plant and an office complex in New Delhi, milk collection and chilling centers located in and around Delhi, and 566 milk booths all over the city. By the impugned tender, the Government seeks to enter into an operations and management arrangement to ensure optimal capacity utilization and efficient management of the DMS plant, initially for a period of 30 years. The successful bidder is required to pay an "Annual Lease Rental" to the Government.
3. A similar tender issued on 22.02.2016, was challenged by the petitioners herein, before this Court in W.P.(C) 3372/2016, which was withdrawn after the tender was dropped by the Government. A second tender was issued on 26.05.2017, which also was withdrawn subsequently and the impugned tender was issued.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioners that the impugned actions of the Union of India have been taken without due application of mind. He submits that there is no occasion for any concessionaire to be appointed as DMS has now become a profitable enterprise. It is his contention that the consequence of the impugned actions would be that members of the petitioner No. 1/Union may not be continued in the service of DMS and may instead be sent to the "Surplus Pool" of the Government, which would be to their detriment.
5. We are not inclined to entertain a challenge to a decision of this nature at the instance of a workers' union. Such a decision is essentially a matter of policy as to the most appropriate arrangement for the efficient and productive management of an asset owned by the Government. A policy decision is amenable to judicial review only if it is contrary to any provision of the Constitution or statute, or otherwise capricious or arbitrary. The contention raised by Mr. Gupta are substantially covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0779/2001 : (2002) 2 SCC 333. The Court repelled a challenge by an employees' union in respect of a disinvestment of the majority shares in a public sector undertaking, BALCO, by the Government of India. After a survey of the previous pronouncements of the Court, it was held as follows:
"46. It is evident from the above that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.
47. Process of disinvestment is a policy decision involving complex economic factors. The courts have consistently refrained from interfering with economic decisions as it has been recognised that economic exped........