As a general rule, it is not for Courts to consider the relative merits of different economic policies like privitisation and disinvestment. The Court is not the Forum for resolving the conflicting clauses regarding the wisdom or advisability of policy. It will be appropriate to consider some relevant decisions of Supreme Court in relation to judicial review of policy decisions.

In Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248 at page 294 the Supreme Court observed as under: - "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..."

The Supreme Court in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Reqd.), v Union of India and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 568 at page 584, while upholding the decision to sell, observed as follows: -"We certainly agree that judicial interference with the administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquieu 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."

In G.B. Mahajan and Others v Ja1qaon MUnicipa1 Counci1 (1991) 3 SCC 91 it was observed as follows: -The present question is one of the extent and scope of judicial review over Policy 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, 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. This again is the judicial recognition of administrator's right to trial and error, as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of authority."

In Premium Granites and another v state of T.N. and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 691 while considering the Court's powers in interfering with the policy decision, it was observed as under: - "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.