Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) The petitioners, e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres Operators of District Jalore, have filed this writ petition being aggrieved with the procedure of selection of service providers to set up and manage e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres (urban and rural) under e-Mitra Project in the State of Rajasthan vide order dated 05.12.2017 issued by the Raj COMP Info Services Ltd. (A Government of Rajasthan undertaking).
(2.) A similar writ petition being SBCWP No. 680/2018, Manish Kumar Soni and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. was filed on behalf of e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres Operators before this Court, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2018 in the following terms: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length. It is noticed that the LSP (partnered with District E-Governance Society, Pali and Department of Information Technology and Communications, Government of Rajasthan) for extending e-Mitra services through Kiosk/Centres to spread coverage of e-Mitra and enhance the convenience of citizen of Pali District, has appointed the petitioners as Franchisees to run e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres at different places in Pali District on the terms and conditions mentioned in agreement executed in the years 2012 and 2013. As per the case of the petitioners, the guidelines have been issued from time to time by the LSP and the other authorities, which are to be followed by the Operators of e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres and the petitioners have followed the same. Now the respondent - Raj COMP Info Services Ltd. has issued the amended guidelines for selection of service providers to setup and manage e-Mitra Kiosks (urban and rural) under e-Mitra Project in the State of Rajasthan vide order dated 05.12.2017. The introductory portion of the order dated 05.12.2017 reads as under: "Dear LSP/ACP, The LSP Review Meeting held on November 17th, 2017 under the chairmanship of Principal Secretary, IT &C to review performance of LSPs on the basis of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to improve performance of kiosks and LSPs for better quality of service delivery. Considering the suggestions of LSPs and for improving the Quality of Services (QoS) delivery, Department have decided the following amendments/addendums regarding LSP and kiosk SLA to existing EOI and agreement signed with LSP and will be effective from 01/01/2018:" From bare reading of the above referred quotation, it is clear that the amended guidelines are issued with intention for improving or making better quality of service delivery. Clause (f) by which the petitioners are aggrieved with the said amended policy reads as under: "f) Kiosk/LSP Certification Policy: In an effort to improve the quality of the services getting delivered through e-Mitra kiosk network, an examination policy has been framed wherein annual assessment of every kiosk will be done through PRE and MAIN exams(Max 3 attempts allowed). It is pre-requisite for a kiosk to clear PRE exam before attempting MAIN exams. The policy document is Annexure A. In case, kiosk 'FAIL' in PRE or MAIN exams, he can reappear in these exams. These exams will be conducted online for which online learning/evaluation system is developed. Considering the cost of development and maintenance of this learning software, committee approved that below examination fees may be charged from applicant appearing for exam: JUDGEMENT_192_LAWS(RAJ)1_2018_1.html The amount collected as above charges will be booked in e-Mitra project and considered as 100% income of e-Mitra. An incentive of Rs. 1000/- per kiosk will be given to top 10 kiosk of each district in pre exam and main exam seperately. Top 10 kiosks of each district will be selected on the basis of marks obtained in first attempt of pre/main exam from the kiosks in respective district which cleared pre/main exam in first attempt. If there is a tie in selection of top 10 kiosk in each district then the kiosk which have maximum transaction in last three months, will be selected for incentive. Result of these exams will be linked with the performance of the LSP as detailed below: JUDGEMENT_192_LAWS(RAJ)1_2018_2.html The kiosk disqualified in pre/main exam, will be terminated and can ope kiosk after six months." It is apparent that with the intention to improving or for making better quality of service delivery, the guidelines for selection of e-Mitra Operators have been amended. Now the question is whether such policy decision taken by the appropriate authority can be interfered with, particularly when there is no challenge on the part of the petitioners that the respondents have no jurisdiction to amend the guidelines for selection of e-Mitra Operators or the said action of respondents suffers from malafide or there is any violation of the provisions of any statute. It is settled that the courts have very limited jurisdiction in interfering with the policy decision of the appropriate authority until and unless it is violative of constitutional provisions or violative of any provisions of statute or suffers from malafides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664 has held as under: "229. 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 infrastructure 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 fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held as under: "232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the Court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is in our Constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The Court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the Court's jurisdiction. 233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power the Court should not be called upon or undertake governmental duties or functions. The Courts cannot run the Government nor the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution and rights of Indians. The courts must, therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere. 234. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the Courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in Public Interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive." As observed earlier, the petitioners have not challenged the authority of respondents of amending the selection procedure of e-Mitra Kiosk/Centres Operators and have also not alleged malafides. It is also not the case of the petitioners that while amending the selection procedure, provision of any statute is violated. The respondents with intention to improve the service delivery at e-Mitra Kiosks/Centres has taken a policy decision to continue and select those persons as operators of such centres who qualify exams and such decision of respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary or bad. In view of above discussion and in view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, hence, the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine."
(3.) Hence, this writ petition is also dismissed in terms of the aforesaid order dated 19.01.2018 passed in SBCWP No. 680/2018- Manish Kumar Soni and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Stay petition also stands dismissed.;