Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab & Ors.

no candidate who would be adversely affected by interference therewith was made a party to this litigation – Therefore, this lis cannot be given a quietus at this stage – These appellants are granted liberty to approach the High Court once again by way of a properly constituted proceeding, impleading all the proper and necessary parties thereto, and seek appropriate relief. [Para 42] Judicial Review – Policy decision – Plea of the State of Punjab that the Court would, ordinarily, not interfere in policy matters: Held: Not accepted – When a policy decision is riddled with arbitrariness or even provides avenues therefor, the Court would be justified in nullifying it – The fact that a policymaker is to be allowed some elbow room in formulating policy does not translate to allowing scope for arbitrariness or nepotism. [Para 37] Internal notings – Relevance – Change in policy formulated by the State examined through file notings reflecting how the decision-making process progressed from stage to stage: Held: In the present case, the notings in the file disclosing the role played by one ‘RKK’, are utmost relevant and cannot be ignored as his intervention in the matter was what actually prompted the policy change that was brought about thereafter. [Para 34] Case Law Cited