contractual issues involving the State or its instrumentalities, the Courts shall not interfere with the decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. Following the Wednesbury’s principle the Court would not go into the correctness of the decision of the administrator and substitute its own decision. The scope of judicial review on the other hand is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision itself, vide the decision in V.Ramana v. APSRTC2 . Testing on the anvil of the above principles, I am of the considered view that this Court cannot exercise the writ jurisdiction to grant any relief in view of availability of efficacious and alternative remedy of appeal to the petitioners under the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines. So far as the contention of the petitioners that their termination was not communicated to the Regional Head of the respondent Corporation and no consent was given by the said authority, is concerned, the respondents’ contention is that as per the Rules, the Authorised Authority has taken the decision and the Territory Manager only communicated the decision of the Head Office. As can be seen, the termination order was signed by the Territory Manager and copies were marked to (i) ED-(LPG)-HQ, Mumbai, (ii) Regional LPG Manager (South), and (iii) Chief General Manager (Sales), LPGHQ, State Head (LPG), AP & Telangana. During pendency of the writ petition, none of the said Authorities have either filed any memo
