AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of fact and law are involved in both these matters (LPA No. 7 of 2012 and CWP No. 4952 of 2012), as is also apparent from the common order dated 3.7.2014, recording statement of Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in CWP No. 4952 of 2012 that outcome of the said writ petition shall abide by the decision in LPA No. 7 of 2012, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with dismissal of their writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellants have preferred the present letters patent appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 24.8.2011, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this court, in CWP No. 33/2010 along with CWP No. 234/2010, titled Dhani Ram Bharmota and others vs. State of H.P. and others and the batch matter. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to by their status before the Single Bench, that is, petitioners and respondents, respectively.

(3.) THE moot question involved in these matters is as to what is the scope of judicial review in policy matters, which is the exclusive domain of the executive. This question arises for consideration and decision against the factual matrix obtaining from the pleadings on behalf of the parties noticed by the learned Single Judge vide paras 2 to 4 of the judgment with reference to CWP No. 234 of 2010 as follows: -