Limited judicial review of policy choices bars courts from substituting their view for executive decisions on district creation.

Creation and continuance of a district was treated as a policy matter within the executive sphere. The Court stated that judicial review in such cases is narrow and does not permit substitution of the court's view for that of the Government merely because another approach is possible. Interference is justified only where a fundamental right is infringed or the policy is otherwise legally unsustainable. As the Government had considered the relevant factors and complied with the earlier reconsideration direction through a Cabinet decision, the State's policy choice was left undisturbed and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the State's policy decision concerning creation and continuance of a district and whether the scope of judicial review in such matters permitted substitution of the Court's view for that of the executive.

Analysis: The creation of a district was a matter of policy falling within the executive sphere. The earlier direction for reconsideration had already been complied with through a Cabinet decision, and the policy had remained operative for a substantial period. In matters of policy, the Court does not interfere unless a fundamental right is infringed or the decision is otherwise legally unsustainable. Where the Government has considered relevant aspects and taken a decision, the Court cannot substitute its own assessment merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered with the State's policy decision, and the challenge to the continuance of the district did not warrant judicial intervention.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the State's executive decision was left undisturbed, reaffirming that courts exercise a very limited review over governmental policy choices.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the executive in policy matters unless a legal or constitutional infirmity is shown, and judicial review in such cases remains narrowly confined.

---