Executive economic policy on ethanol blending upheld as valid; courts will not substitute views on policy wisdom.

The Delhi HC upheld the Ethanol Blended Petrol programme and administered ethanol pricing as a valid exercise of executive power, since the policy was framed in public interest and no constitutional or statutory prohibition was shown. The absence of a separate statute did not invalidate the scheme where the Union acted within its constitutional sphere. The Court also rejected arbitrariness challenges, holding that judicial review does not extend to reassessing the wisdom or economic desirability of policy, and that adverse impact on industrial users or market prices did not by itself establish illegality, mala fides, or irrationality.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Ethanol Blended Petrol programme and the administered price for ethanol could be sustained as an executive policy without specific statutory backing; (ii) Whether the policy was liable to be struck down as arbitrary for its impact on industrial users of ethanol and on the market for the commodity.

Issue (i): Whether the Ethanol Blended Petrol programme and the administered price for ethanol could be sustained as an executive policy without specific statutory backing.

Analysis: The programme was introduced and continued through executive action in exercise of the Union's constitutional authority. The materials showed that the scheme was framed as a public policy measure linked to cleaner fuel, environmental benefits, support to farmers, and planned procurement by public sector oil companies. The absence of a separate enactment did not, by itself, invalidate the policy where the executive was acting within its sphere and no constitutional or statutory prohibition was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of want of statutory foundation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the policy was liable to be struck down as arbitrary for its impact on industrial users of ethanol and on the market for the commodity.

Analysis: The Court held that the wisdom, efficacy, and comparative desirability of an economic policy are not matters for judicial substitution. The record showed that the policy had been considered over time, with expert reports and policy reviews, and that the Union had chosen a procurement and pricing model in furtherance of public interest. The fact that the policy adversely affected one class of industrial consumers or may have altered market prices did not establish arbitrariness or illegality, absent violation of any constitutional or statutory command or proof of mala fides or irrationality.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of arbitrariness and economic disadvantage also failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held to be without merit because the ethanol blending policy was treated as a valid exercise of executive power and its economic consequences were held to be beyond the scope of merits review in judicial review.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy framed within the executive's constitutional power, adopted in public interest and not contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision, cannot be invalidated merely because it affects private commercial interests or because a court considers it economically unwise.

---