New Delhi: The Patna high court has ruled that pricing and procurement of food grains for the public distribution system and the fixation of minimum support price (MSP) are policy decisions of a government. Therefore, it has said that it cannot interfere with such government’s policies unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or violative of Article 14/21 of the Constitution of India”, LiveLaw has reported.The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar has made these observations while hearing public interest litigation, requesting the state government to fix MSP for procuring agricultural crops, especially maize, which is lying in abundance in Bihar.Opposing the petition, the department of food and civil supplies has said it cannot procure a particular crop requested by the petitioner as it is a matter of policy. It has further added that as godowns of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) are likely to be filled up with other categories of food grains, any decision to fix MSP would be against public interest and contrary to the policy.Stating that the state government has already placed on record the revised guidelines for the distribution of coarse grains, including maize, the court has said, “Whether the decision is in terms of the said policy, statute or not, we need not go into same. Nothing is brought to our notice indicating the policy or the action of the respondents to be violative of Article 14/21 of the Constitution of India.”Also read: A Minimum Support Price for Farmers Should Be Made a Legal RightThe court has further said it cannot merely issue directives to the state government because there is maize crop in excess this year. “Only for the reason that this year in the State of Bihar, the crop of maize is in excess than the previous year, cannot be a reason for this Court to issue a mandamus directing the State to procure the food-grains i.e. maize under the Minimum Support Price, so fixed with respect to other items of food-grains.”Stating that principles governing the scope of judicial review in the matters relating to price fixation are now well established, the judges have reiterated that a government is well within its right to fix prices, as dictated by the public interest.The court has relied upon Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, H.S.S.K. Niyami v. Union of India and Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. to arrive at its decision.