BALCO CASE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, High school final essays of Law

Download BALCO CASE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and more High school final essays Law in PDF only on Docsity! Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087593 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ‘BALCO CASE’ I. INTRODUCTION Administrative decision making has been a subject of great discussion since long. The application of a mind, which is in not a strict sense judicial, the presence of arbitral preferences coupled with the fact of discretion allowed to the executive in decision making, more often than not, carries the impression of whims and caprices being involved while such decision has been taken. The question of why at all this is so, is to be answered not from a legal but from a humanitarian standpoint. Each human differs from other and when subjective satisfaction of a group of individuals is concerned, the executive wing of the state in the present case; it is bound to happen that one there will be a number of groups who do not agree with the decision so taken for they have their own criterias and yardsticks to measure the same. Possible the same is the case with administrative decision making. When the Government is satisfied, based upon the material considered and issues involved, that a given decision is appropriate for a circumstances, it may equivocally be true that it may not satiate each and every individual concerned with the similar set of issues and therefore there may arise a conflict. History is full of examples and is enriching day by day of the instances in which executive decisions have been challenged on grounds of they being arbitrary, suffering from mala fide, based on non-satisfactory grounds, irrational, to name a few of them. The study of one such instance forms the essence of this paper. The decision of the Government of India to disinvest M/s Bharat Aluminum Company Limited, popularly known as BALCO was challenged by the employees of BALCO , State of Chattisgarh (the state in which BALCO is located) and by some public spirited individuals before various High Court and finally before the Supreme Court. It was challenged that the decision to disinvest BALCO was contrary to the legal and social interests of the employees as well as certain other legal issues were raised by different parties. The present study is to analyse the judgment of the Supreme Court in the instant case with a critical angle and also trace its legal impact with a special focus on the impact it has made upon Administrative law. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087593 To introduce the case, it would be advisable to dwell in the broad frame the case dealt with rather than to deal with the precise facts and issues. To categorize, the case dealt with a challenge to the administrative power of the Government on the matter of disinvestment of its stake in a government company as regards the procedure followed while so deciding and also the provisions that needs to be examined while deciding the issue. On a broader level, an administrative policy was under a challenge before the Court. The precise impact that this decision, therefore, had was on the level of administrative discretion that the executive enjoyed in the selection of and following of a policy which had a vital impact on the economic position of the country. Nevertheless, the answer of the Supreme Court has been affirmative and it was categorical in mentioning that unless the policy adopted by the government suffered from the vires of illegality or malafide. Not stopping at this, the Court also gave a substantive reflection on the aspect of natural rights and their applicability as regards the choice of administrative policy. For a detailed analysis and to have a diverse perspective, the study has been divided into different chapters which deal with a host of issues involved in the case and for having a varied dimension. II. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE (I) IMMEDIATE FACTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT CASE The case arose to challenge the validity of the decision of the Union of India to disinvest and transfer 51% shares of M/s Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BALCO ’). The case was filed by way of a writ petition by the BALCO Employees’ Union by filing Writ Petition No. 2249 of 1999 in the High Court of Delhi when upon the recommendation of the Disinvestment Commission, the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment approved the sale of 51% of the shares of BALCO to private ownership and thus reducing the status of the company from a Government Company to a private enterprise.
This decision of the Government to the aforesaid strategic sale was challenged by the BALCO Employees' Union by filing Writ Petition No. 2249 of 1999 in the High Court of Delhi. This petition was disposed of by the High Court vide its order dated 3rd August, 1999.
On 3rd March, 2000, the Union Cabinet approved the Ministry of Mines' proposal to reduce the share capital of BALCO from Rs. 488.8 crores to Rs. 244.4 crores.
A formal Agreement between Jardine Fleming, the Global Advisor and the Government of India was executed on 14thJune, 2000. The scope of work of the Global Advisor was also agreed thereon.
Thereafter, on 16thJune, 2000 the Global Advisor, on behalf of the Government of India, issued an advertisement calling for "Expression of Interest" in leading journals and newspapers all over the world.
This advertisement was responded by eight companies which submitted their Expression of Interest.
Upon this, M/s Jardine Fleming, the Global Advisor made an analysis of the various bids on the basis of the financial and technical capability, familiarity with India and overall credibility. Thereupon two companies were rejected. Of two other companies, they were treated as one by Inter-Ministerial Group set up by the Union of India as belonging to the same group and thus there remained five prospective bidders out of the total eight.
Of these five, two dropped out and there remained three bidders who conducted their due diligence inspection. These were, o ALCOA, USA, o Hindalco Industries Ltd. and o Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.
The drafts of the Shareholders' Agreement and the Share Purchase Agreement, as presented by these three prospective bidders were considered by the Inter-Ministerial Group and it had discussion with them. Ultimately the said drafts were finalized on 11thJanuary, 2001.
For the purpose of carrying out the asset valuation of BALCO, the Global Advisor short listed four parties from the list of Registered Government Valuers approved by the Income-Tax Department. On 18thJanuary, 2001, BALCO invited quotations from the four Registered Valuers, so short listed, and the quotation of Shri P.V. Rao was accepted.
On 14thFebruary, 2001 Shri P.V. Rao submitted his asset valuation report to M/s Jardine Fleming.
The three contenders, namely, Alcoa, Hindalco and Sterlite Industries Ltd. submitted their sealed bids to the Secretary (Mines) and Secretary (Disinvestment) on 16thFebruary, 2001.
When the financial bids were opened, it was found that the bid of Sterlite was the highest at Rs. 551.5 crores, the bid of Hindalco was Rs. 275 crores while ALCOA had opted out.
The report of the Evaluation Committee for acceptance of the bid which was higher than the reserve price was considered by the IMG which recommended the acceptance of the bid of Sterlite Industries to the core group of Secretaries. This core group in turn made its recommendation to the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment which on 21stFebruary, 2001 approved/accepted the bid of Sterlite Industries at Rs. 551.5 crores. The Government's decision was communicated to Sterlite Industries on that date.
The announcement of the decision to accept the bid of Sterlite Industries led to the initiation of legal proceedings challenging the said decision. On 23rd February, 2001, Dr. B.L. Wadhera filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1262 of 2001 in the Delhi High Court. This was followed by Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2001 filed by the employees of BALCO on 24thFebruary, 2001 also in the High Court of Delhi. On that very date, i.e., on 24thFebruary, 2001 another employee of BALCO, namely, Mr. Samund Singh Kanwar filed Civil Writ Petition No. 241 of 2001 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
While the aforesaid writ petitioners were pending there was a Calling Attention Motion on Disinvestment with regard to BALCO in the Rajya Sabha. Discussions on the said motion took place in the Rajya Sabha on 27thFebruary, 2001 and the matter was discussed in the Lok Sabha on 1stMarch, 2001. The motion "that this House disapproves the proposed disinvestment of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd." was defeated in the Lok Sabha by 239 votes to 119 votes.
Soon thereafter on 2nd March, 2001, Shareholders Agreement and Share Purchase Agreement between the Government of India and Sterlite Industries Limited were signed. Pursuant to the execution of sale, 51% of the equity was transferred to Sterlite Industries Limited and a cheque for Rs. 551.5 crores was received.
It was upon these events that the Petitions filed before the Delhi and Chattisgarh High Courts and were finally transferred to the Supreme Court after the application of the Union of India before the Court for the transfer of the transfer of the same. (III) CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES (A) On behalf of the BALCO Employees' Union. (1) Before disinvestment, the entire paid-up capital of BALCO was owned and controlled by the Government of India and its administrative control co-vested in the Ministry of Mines. BALCO was, therefore, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.1 Therefore, by the reason of disinvestment the workmen had lost their right and protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This was an adverse civil consequence and, therefore, they had a right to be heard before and during the process of disinvestment. (2) The type of consultation with the workmen which was necessary was i. Whether BALCO should go though the process of disinvestment; ii. Who should be the strategic partner; and iii. How should the bid of the strategic partner be evaluated. (3) It was further submitted that the workmen had reason to believe that apart from the sale of 51% of the shares in favour of Sterlite Industries the Agreement Postulated that balance 49% will also be sold to them with the result that when 1 The Petitioner, for the said contention relied on Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. (1986) 3 SCC 156. Thus it was stated by the Attorney General on behalf of the Union of India that the Court should not interfere in the entire process as it was purely an administrative decision, to which the power of judicial review did not extend. The Union relied on a number of authorities of the Supreme Court wherein similar opinions had been observed. The relevant portions have been reproduced herein below. 1. "It is again not for this Court to consider the relative merits of the different political theories or economic policies...This Court has the power to strike down a law on the ground of want of authority, but the Court will not sit in appeal over the policy of the Parliament in enacting a law..."”4 2. "...We certainly agree that judicial interference with the administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquien system of separation of powers. The Court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the Directorate of a Government company has acted fairly, even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot, as a super- auditor, take the Board of Directors to task. This function is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by rules of public administration."5 3. "...The criticism of the project being 'unconventional' does not add to or advance the legal contention any further. The question is not whether it is unconventional by the standard of the extant practices, but whether there was something in the law rendering it impermissible. There is, no doubt, a degree of public accountability in all governmental enterprises. But, the present question is one of the extent and scope of judicial review over such matters. With the expansion of the State's presence in the field of trade and commerce and of the range of economic and commercial enterprises of government and its instrumentalities there is an increasing dimension to governmental concern for stimulating efficiency, keeping costs down, improved management methods, 4 Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248 at page 294. 5 Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 568 at page 584. prevention of time and cost overruns in projects, balancing of costs against time scales, quality control, cost-benefit ratios etc. In search of these values it might become necessary to adopt appropriate techniques of management of projects with concomitant economic expediencies. These are essentially matters of economic policy which lack adjudicative disposition, unless they violate constitutional or legal limits on power or have demonstrable pejorative environmental implications or amount to clear abuse of power.6 4. “The function of the Court is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must act reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts."7 5. “It is not the domain of the Court to embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether the particular public policy is wise or a better, public policy can be evolved. Such exercise must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may be..."8 6. “Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixt of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes into conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not outstep its limit and tinkder with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State.”9 6 G.B. Mahajan and Others v. Jalgaon Municipal Council and Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 91. 7 Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited and Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343. 8 Premium Granites and Anr v. State of T.N. and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 691. 9 Premium Granites and Anr v. State of T.N. and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 691. 7. “So far as questioning the validity of governmental policy is concerned in our view it is not normally within the domain of any court, to weight the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinize it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling it, based on howsoever sound and good reasoning, except whether it is arbitrary or violative of any constitution, statutory or any other provision of law. When Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The Court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to the executive.”10 8. “… [Matters of economic policy] are best left to the wisdom of the legislature and in policy matters the accepted principle is that the courts should not interfere. Moreover in the context of the changed economic scenario the expertise of people dealing with the subject should not be lightly interfered with. The consequences of such interdiction can have large-scale ramifications and can put the clock back for a number of years. The process of rationalistation of the infirmities in the economy can be put in serious jeopardy and, therefore, it is necessary that while dealing with economic legislations, this Court, while not jettisoning its jurisdiction to curb arbitrary action or unconstitutional legislation, should interfere only in those few cases where the view reflected in the legislation is not possible to be taken at all.”11 9. “It is now well settled that the Courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the Courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The Court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's 10 State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Ors (1998) 4 SCC 117. 11 Bhavesh D. Parish and Ors. v. Union and India and Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 471. Mr. Ajit Jogi, it also served to forestall further challenges by state governments on the federal government’s prerogatives on privatization.  Also, the Court circumscribed the extent to which matters of economic policy and disinvestment in particular, and consequently matters of policy, shall be scrutinized by courts. The Court was categorical in stating that ‘‘it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular policy is wise or whether a better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a particular 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. … Parliament is the proper forum for questioning such policy.”16 Thus the Court held that such disputes were beyond the realm of judicial determination and were left to the legislature to have circumspection over such executive policies.  Also, aware of the economic costs of the plant closure as a result of the judicial intervention, the Court for the first time declared that, ‘‘No ex parte relief by way of injunction or stay especially with respect to public projects and schemes or economic policies or schemes should be granted. It is only when the Court is satisfied for good and valid reasons that there will be irreparable and irretrievable damage can an injunction be issued after hearing all the parties.’’ Thus the Court seems to have learned from its experience in the case of Narmada Bachaoo Andolan wherein interim reliefs caused great barriers in the completion of the project and thus millions were lost.  As a sort of warning, the Court sought to deprecate the excessive use of PILs as a medium to thrash government policies which were prima facie genuine and correct. It thus added, “the Petitioner should be put on appropriate terms such as providing an indemnity or an adequate undertaking to make good the loss or damage in the event the PIL is dismissed.’’ It categorically held that ‘‘every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to 16 The Court further stressed that it will refrain from interfering in economic decisions ‘‘unless the economic decision... is demonstrated to be... violative of constitutional or legal limits on power or ... abhorrent to reason…In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the Courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgement of the experts who may have arrived at the conclusion unless the Court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself.’’ and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of Constitutional or statutory provisions or non- compliance by the State with its Constitutional or statutory duties.’’ In regard to disinvestment specifically, it held, ‘‘The decision to disinvest and the implementation thereof is purely an administrative decision relating to the economic policy of the State and challenge to the same at the instance of a busy- body cannot fall within the parameters of Public Interest Litigation.’’  The Court also specified the contours of the rights of labour when policy changes were affected, for instance when the Government disinvests its equity in an enterprise. While holding that in the BALCO disinvestment case, the Government had exerted itself to protect the interests of employees of the company, more generally it was open for the Government, like any other employer, to take workers along, to keep them informed about prospective changes and to allay their apprehensions but, labour could not claim a right, either on the basis of natural justice or any other foundation, to be consulted, or the right to receive prior notice, or to be consulted at every stage of the process. The Court also specially held that ‘‘even a government servant, having the protection of not only Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but also of Article 311, had no absolute right to remain in service’’ and therefore the decision to change the control of the company from government to private hands was the sole prerogative of the government and could not be challenged by the employees. IV. IMPLICATIONS THAT FOLLOW FROM THE JUDGMENT It is true that the decision given by the Court in the BALCO case was based upon a sound appreciation of arguments, yet there are many implications which may follow pursuant to the decision. 1. The major emphasis is on the policy of disinvestment. Though the Court did not go into the merits of the disinvestment policy per se yet, it did silently approve the policy to be followed by the Union. Thus the court supported the revival of the national economic with the support of private lines. The earlier policy of socialist economy, as upon which the Constitution was based and is as well enshrined in the Preamble, read with the State’s duty to avoid concentration of wealth in private hands as envisaged under the Directive Principles was not considered an appropriate solution for meeting the present day need i.e. boosting the national economic growth. 2. The observations of the Court on the aspect of natural justice may have been insignificant in terms of words spoken on it or portion of the judgment dealing with it yet; the impact which it has created is enormous. The Court held that the principles of natural justice did not apply even in case the rights of the employees were affected as regards the change of their employer. They were not even given an opportunity to be heard and this was the sole bone of contention. For the very reason that Sterlite industries (the buyer) had given an undertaking that no employee of BALCO would be removed and the government had taken sufficient steps towards the protection of the employees, they had no reason to be heard. Sounds innocuous yet despairing. Employees, being connected with the manufacturing and other process in a much closer manner than any other body had, at least, the minimum right to put their views before the Court. Thus the participation of employees in the betterment of their organisation at the Board level was also discouraged. 3. Also, an important fact that may have evaded the critics, the method of computation of BALCO’s capital. Of the three different methods, the accounting method adopted for arriving at the reserve price for the sale of BALCO was the one with the lowest result. It was never questioned by the Court. Thus it can be used in later cases before the Court that the method adopted by the Government is beyond judicial review too as it falls within the ambit of administrative discretion too. It may seem to be a remote issue nevertheless may be raised in the Courts. 4. Further, the Court never did accept or upheld that disinvestment as a policy per se was a good policy to be implemented in the pursuance of national economic growth. Yet it was so stated in the later case wherein the disinvestment of HPCL and BPCL was challenged and it was contended by the Union of India that the policy of disinvestment was upheld by the Supreme Court in the BALCO case. BIBLIOGRAPHY ARTICLES: 1. Devesh Kapur and Ravi Ramamurti, Privatization in India: The Imperatives and Consequences of Gradualism, (Working Paper No. 142, Center For Research On Economic Development And Policy Reform) 2. Presentation on Disinvestment, as presented by the Union of India at the OECD CONFERENCE on Privatisation, Employment and Employees, 10-11 OCTOBER 2002, Turkey) 3. Shankar Acharya, India’s Macroeconomic Management In The Nineties, (As Prepared For Indian Council For Research On International Economic Relations, 2001) 4. T.N. Srinivasan, Economic Reforms and Global Integration, (Policy Paper, as presented to Center for Research on Economic Development and Policy Reform (CREDPR), Stanford University, 2001) 5. Valuation of Public Sector Undertakings: Issues and Methodologies (Paper prepared by Sarvashri Nand Kishore, Ms.Rudra Saha, Ajaib Singh, A.N. Sarkar and S.K. Thakur, IAAS officers during the course on General Management at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, 2002) BOOKS: 1. Jain & Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, (Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, 4th edition, 2003) 2. I. P. Messy, Principles of Adminstrative Law, (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2003) WEBSITES: 1. The Frontline, Volume 18 - Issue 06, Mar. 17 - 30, 2001, <http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1806/18060240.htm> (Last visited on January 11, 2005) ANNEXURE – I SOME PERTINENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT IN THE CASE  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. (para 46)  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 recognized that economic expediencies lack adjudicative disposition and unless the economic decision, based on economic expediencies, is demonstrated to be so violative of constitutional or legal limits on power or so abhorrent to reason, that the Courts would decline to interfere. In matters relating to economic issues, the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within limits of authority. (para 47)  There is no case made out by the petitioner that the decision to disinvest in BALCO is in any way capricious, arbitrary, illegal or uninformed. Even though the workers may have interest in the manner in which the Company is conducting its business, inasmuch as its policy decision may have an impact on the workers rights, nevertheless it is an incidence of service for an employee to accept a decision of the employer which has been honestly taken and which is not contrary to law. Even a government servant, having the protection of not only Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but also of Article 311, has no absolute right to remain in service. For example, apart from cases of disciplinary action, the services of government servants can be terminated if posts are abolished. If such employee cannot make a grievance based on part III of the Constitution or Article 311 then it cannot stand to reason that like the petitioners, non-government employees working in a company which by reason of judicial pronouncement may be regarded as a State for the purpose of part II of the Constitution, can claim a superior or a better right than a government servant and impugn it's change of status. (para 47)  In taking of a policy decision in economic matters at length, the principles of natural justice have no role to play. While it is expected of a responsible employer to take all aspects into consideration including welfare of the labour before taking any policy decision that, by itself, will not entitle the employees to demand a right of hearing or consultation prior to the taking of the decision. (para 47)  Merely because the workmen may have protection of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, by regarding BALCO as a State, it does not mean that the erstwhile sole shareholder viz., Government had to give the workers prior notice of hearing before deciding to disinvest. There is no principle of natural justice which requires prior notice and hearing to persons who are generally affected as a class by an economic policy decision of the Government. (para 48)  If the abolition of a post pursuant to a policy decision does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution as held in State of Haryana v. Shri Des Raj Sangar and Anr., (1976) 2 SSC 844, on the same parity of reasoning, the policy of disinvestment cannot be faulted if as a result thereof the employees loss their rights or protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In other words, the existence of rights of protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot possibly have the effect of vetoing the Government's right to disinvest. Nor can the employees claim a right of continuous consultation at different stages of the disinvestment process. If the disinvestment process is gone through without contravening any law, then the normal consequence as a result of disinvestment must follow. (para 48) The Court approved the decision of the Madras High Court in Southern Structurals Staff Union v. Management of Southern Structural Ltd. and Anr., [1994] 81 Comp Cases 389 (Mad).19 19 the relevant extract of the judgment of the High Court is as follows; “Employment under the State is not a precondition for approaching the High Court or the Supreme Court. All industrial workers have a right to approach the Labour court or Industrial Tribunals for adjudication of their rights subject to the limitations contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Like all citizens industrial workers also have the right to approach civil courts for redressal of their wrongs. The decisions rendered by the civil, labour and industrial courts or tribunals are open to challenge before the High Court and the Supreme Court in appropriate proceedings. Actions of the government or other authorities performing any public duty are amendable to correction in proceedings under article 226. By Supreme Court had explained the meaning, scope and extent of PIL, the most recent one being the Narmada Bachaoo Andolan Case.  The Court also gave a conclusion to the entire matter in the judgment and held as follows; o The decision to disinvest and the implementation thereof is purely an administrative decision relating to the economic policy of the State and challenge to the same at the instance of a busy-body cannot fall within the parameters of Public Interest Litigation. o Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any stuttered provision or the Constitution. In other words, it is not for the Courts to consider relative merits of different economic polices and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is the Parliament and not the Courts. Here the policy was tested and the Motion defeated in the Lok Sabha on 1st March, 2001. o Thus, apart from the fact that the policy of disinvestment cannot be questioned as such, the facts herein show that fair, just and equitable procedure has been followed in carrying out this disinvestment. The allegations of lack of transparency or that the decision was taken in a hurry or there has been an arbitrary exercise of power are without any basis. o The offer of the highest bidder has been accepted. This was more than the reserve price which was arrived at by a method which is well recognized and, therefore, we have not examined the details in the matter of arriving at the valuation figure. Moreover, valuation is a question of fact and the Court will not interfere in matters of valuation unless the methodology adopted is arbitrary.20 o The ratio of the decision in Samatha's case is inapplicable here as the legal provisions here are different. The land was validly given to BALCO 20 For this purpose the court refereed to the case of Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 1 SCC 633. a number of years ago and today it is not open to the State of Chattisgarh to take a summersault and challenge in management the land remains with BALCO to whom it had been validly given on lease. o Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of Constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform the Court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of Constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with it's Constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in this present case. o In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the Court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself. o Lastly, no ex-parte relief by way of injunction or stay especially with respect to public projects and schemes or economic policies or schemes should be granted. It is only when the Court is satisfied for good and valid reasons, that there will be irreparable and irretrievable damage can an injunction be issued after hearing all the parties. Even then the Petitioner should be put on appropriate terms such as providing an indemnity or an adequate undertaking to make good the loss or damage in the event the PIL filed is dismissed.