A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) SHOULD the Court perpetuate the small monopolies created in recent past on account of an accident that due to religious beliefs and sentiments a large number of manufacturers of soap refrained themselves from using mutton-tallow as a raw material in the production of soap ? Should the Court be oblivious of the constitutional provision and direct the Government to continue the policy which works to the common detriment of numerous small scale manufacturing units of soap? These are some of the questions which await our answer. ( 2 ) THE questions which require to be decided in this petition pertain to the distribution of palm fatty acid a raw material used in the manufacture of soap. What should be the basis of distribution of palm fatty acid which is an imported item and a substitute for mutton-tallow? Till June 1983 mutton-tallow was being imported and distributed amongst the manufacturers of soap. As a matter of policy the Government of India decided to ban the import of mutton-tallow and thereafter palm fatty acid which is a substitute for muttontallow is being imported. The palm fatty acid was being distributed amongst the manufacturers of soap in the State on the basis of their past consumption of muttons-tallow. Some of the manufactures of soap filed petition being Special Civil Application No. 3672 of 1984 in this High Court and contended that the basis of distribution of palm fatty acid should not be the past consumption of mutton-tallow. But it should be. either the entire production of soap by a particular unit or the consumption of other raw materials which go in the manufacture of soap. The appropriate authority of the State Government wrote a letter dated 24/09/1984 to the Government Solicitors and indicated that in future i. e. from next quarter July-September 1984 the distribution of palm fatty acid would be on the basis of certified consumption of various types of oils/fats used in the manufacture of soap instead of past consumption of mutton-tallow. This shift in the basis of distribution of palm fatty acid is challenged by the petitioners herein who are manufacturers of soap and who were receiving the palm fatty acid on the basis of their past consumption of mutton-tallow. This shift in the basis of distribution of palm fatty acid is challenged by the petitioners herein who are manufacturers of soap and who were receiving the palm fatty acid on the basis of their past consumption of mutton-tallow. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid action of the State Government is challenged inter alia on the ground that the State Government has no power to change the basis of the distribution of palm fatty acid. The contention is raised on the basis of the legislative powers of the Central Government. Reliance is placed on Article 73 of the Constitution and upon Entry No. 41 in List I to Schedule VII of the Constitution. Article 73 deals with the extent of executive power of the Union Government. Entry 4t of List I to Schedule VII reads as follows;"trade and commerce with foreign countries; import and export across customs frontiers; definition of customs frontiers". The distribution of an imported item is certainly not a matter falling within the executive function of the Union Government or a matter falling within Entry 41 reproduced hereinabove. Simply because an item is an imported item and it is being distributed through the State agency it does not become a subject forming part of the international trade. After the commodity is imported in the country and it is put in the stream of trade through the State agency of through any other private agency the subsequent activities after the import of the particular commodity become a matter of internal trade. ;therefore the argument based on the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution cannot be accepted. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the respondents has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara reported in A. I. R. (38) 1951 S. C. 318. The principle laid down in this case supports the aforesaid conclusion. The Supreme Court has laid down that the State Government will have power to legislate even with respect to the consumption land use of an imported item. Simply because an item is an imported one it does not fall within the exclusive purview of the functions of the general Government. The Supreme Court has laid down that the State Government will have power to legislate even with respect to the consumption land use of an imported item. Simply because an item is an imported one it does not fall within the exclusive purview of the functions of the general Government. ( 5 ) IT is next contended that while changing the policy the persons who are being given quota on the earlier basis are not heard and they have not been given an opportunity of being heard. Moreover no concurrence of the Central Government is also received. Therefore the action of the State Govern ment should be held to be bad. In the instant case. at no time the State Government held out any promise either to the petitioners or to anyone else that the basis of the distribution of the particular imported item i. e. palm fatty acid could be the past consumption of mutton-tallow. There is no vested right of the petitioners and they cannot claim particular quota as of right. Therefore no question of granting any hearing arises. Even in cases where any policy statement might have been made it is doubtful as to whether it would be necessary for the State Government to grant hearing while changing the policy for distribution of a particular commodity. As far as this case is concerned there is nothing in the petition to show that the State Government at any time made any policy statement to the effect that the past consumption of mutton-tallow would by the basis for allotment of quota of palm fatty acid for a specified period. Therefore the aforesaid argument has also got to be rejected. ( 6 ) AS far as the argument based on the necessity of concurrence of the Central Government is concerned it is not given under which provision of law such concurrence is necessary. Even if such concurrence is necessary the same is apparent from the letter dated 27/12/1984 written by the office of the Development Commissioner Small Scale Industries. Ministry of Industry Nirman Bhavan (A Wing) New Delhi. The letter is addressed to the Director of Industries Ahmedabad. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said letter read as follows:"it appears that your office is not inclined to release Palm Fatty Acid Distillate to the small scale units who had not been lifting mutton-tallow/fatty acid earlier. Ministry of Industry Nirman Bhavan (A Wing) New Delhi. The letter is addressed to the Director of Industries Ahmedabad. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said letter read as follows:"it appears that your office is not inclined to release Palm Fatty Acid Distillate to the small scale units who had not been lifting mutton-tallow/fatty acid earlier. In this connection I am directed to inform you that due to religious sentiments number of small scale units manufacturing soap had not been lifting mutton-tallow for manufacture of soap. However as now the material being imported by STC is of vegetable origin these units who had not been lifting mutton-tallow earlier would like to lift the material from STC. Hence it would perhaps not be proper to debar all small scale units who had not been lifting mutton-tallow earlier in lifting palm fatty acid distillate". From what is stated hereinabove it is clear that as far as the Central Government is concerned the Central Government has no objection if the palm fatty acid is distributed on the basis of the past consumption of raw material which went into the manufacture of soap other than mutton-tallow also. Therefore this argument has also got to be rejected. ( 7 ) THE counsel for the petitioners submitted that the basis of allotment of State quota for palm fatty acid is the past consumption of mutton-tallow by the actual users of mutton-tallow in the State of Gujarat. On this point there is a bare averment in the petition which has been denied by respondent No. 4 in affidavit dated 26/12/1984 Thus there is a word against word. This being a disputed question of fact and the Central Government not being a party in this matter the same cannot be decided in this petition. Even so in the question is required to be decided on the basis of the material produced on record it has got to be inferred that the basis of allotment of palm fatty acid by the Central Government to the State is certainly not the past consumption of mutton-tallow by the State. This can be inferred from the letter dated 20 written by the Deputy Director (Chem.) office of the Development Commissioner Small Scale Industries New Delhi wherein it is clearly indicated that the State quota of allocation of palm fatty acid has been doubles during the current year. This can be inferred from the letter dated 20 written by the Deputy Director (Chem.) office of the Development Commissioner Small Scale Industries New Delhi wherein it is clearly indicated that the State quota of allocation of palm fatty acid has been doubles during the current year. From this it has got to be inferred that the basis of allotment of State quota of palm fatty acid is not the past consumption of mutton-tallow. A copy of this letter is produced on record by respondent No. 4. ( 8 ) IT is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that if it is construed that the State Government has power to change the basis of distribution of palm fatty acid then it may result into anomaly inasmuch as different states may adopt different criterion. In affidavit rejoinder dated 31/01/1985 filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 it is submitted that the States of Maharashtra and Rajasthan are distributing the palm fatty acid not the basis of the past consumption of various types of raw materials and not on the basis of past consumption of mutton-tallow be that as in may. Even if the basis of distribution of palm fatty acid differs from state to state on that count it cannot and should not be held that the State Government has no power to change the basis of distribution. If one has an elementary idea about the concept of regional plan ning then the hollowness of the argument would be immediately realised. In a country like ours there is wide disparity in the consumption pattern of different sections of population from region to region; there is wide disparity in the food habits and in the cultural background of different states. There is considerable disparity in the development of trade commerce and industry between different states and regions of the country. A state should be free to select a criterion which is suitable for the development of the industry in the region. The criterion should be relevant and should not have been picked up arbitrarily. ( 9 ) IT does not require any research to understand that Gujarat is the State in which there is overwhelming influence of Jain Vaishnav and Swaminarayan religions which preach non-violence and non-user of things prepared out of animal meat/fat. The criterion should be relevant and should not have been picked up arbitrarily. ( 9 ) IT does not require any research to understand that Gujarat is the State in which there is overwhelming influence of Jain Vaishnav and Swaminarayan religions which preach non-violence and non-user of things prepared out of animal meat/fat. It also does not require any research or any enterprise to understand that in Gujarat numerous people following the aforesaid religions are in business community. It has got to be inferred that many persons following the aforesaid religions must be in the business of manufacture of soap. Therefore if a State selects a criterion which is in conformity with the social. religious and cultural background and the behaviour pattern of its people such a change cannot in any way be said to be irrelevant. Therefore this argument has also no basis and it has got to be rejected. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that if the consumption of edible oil is treated as the basis for distribution of palm fatty acid (imported item) then the manufacturers of soap will switch over to the consumption of edible oil with a view to get quota of imported item i. e. palm fatty acid. The argument is based on the hypothesis that in future the people will switch over to the business of manufacturing of soap and there will be a huge margin of profit so as to entice the people first to use edible oil in the manufacture of soap and then to ask for the quota of palm fatty acid. On this basis it is argued that it would reduce the consumption of edible oil for food purposes and the supply of edible oil will be diverted to the manufacture of soap which will adversely affect the economy of the country and it will ultimately adversely affect the foreign exchange earnings. To say the least the argument is far-fetched and it is based on a hypothesis which has no factual foundation. At present the policy is being changed. The allotment of palm fatty acid is to be made not only on the basis of the past consumption of mutton-tallow but it will be on the basis of past consumption of other raw-material also which may include; edible oil. It is not that this will remain the policy for the further also. At present the policy is being changed. The allotment of palm fatty acid is to be made not only on the basis of the past consumption of mutton-tallow but it will be on the basis of past consumption of other raw-material also which may include; edible oil. It is not that this will remain the policy for the further also. 0nc does not know what will he the future market position. It may be that in future user of palm fatty acid the imported item may become uneconomic. There is no basis for the inference that more and more people will which over to the business of soap manufacturing. At present the basis of allotment is going to be consumption of edible oil and not further consumption. Therefore the argument which is based on hypothesis having no factual foundation cannot he accepted. ( 11 ) ESSENTIALLY this is a matter in which the Courts will be very slow to interfere. The question is in the realm of policy to be followed by the Government. The policy decision which may be taken by the Government ordinarily will not be disturbed by the court unless the policy decision itself is based on an irrational or extraneous criterion. In the instant case the policy decision is changed or the ground that the vast majority of the manufacturers of soap were being excluded from the benefit which flows on account of the user of imported item. The result of the shift in the policy would be that formerly few of the manufacturers. say hardly about 15 to 20. were in a position to get palm fatty acid as they were using mutton-tallow in the manufacture of soap. These persons were entitled to the larger quantity of palm fatty acid not on account of any superior or pioneering entrepreneurial skill or excellence proved by them. It was on account of a mere accident that in this particular industry in this region of the country the vast majority of the manufacturers of soap refrained from using mutton-tallow due to their religious beliefs and sentiments. On account of the shift in the policy roughly about 1000 soap manufacturers would be entitled to receive palm fatty acid who are in no way different from the petitioners except that their religious beliefs and sentiments all not permit them to use mutton-tallow. . On account of the shift in the policy roughly about 1000 soap manufacturers would be entitled to receive palm fatty acid who are in no way different from the petitioners except that their religious beliefs and sentiments all not permit them to use mutton-tallow. . Such a shift in the policy is in conformity with the Directive Principles of the Constitution. particularly Art. 39 and (c) which reads:-"39 Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State-The State shall. in particular direct its policy towards securing - (a) x x x x x (b) That the ownership= and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; (b) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. . . . . . . . "by shift in the policy. the Government wishes to see (as it also appeals from the letter written by the General Government to the State Government and which has been referred to hereinabove) that the small units manufacturing soap may also get the benefit. The shift in the policy would result into breaking up of small monopolies which have been cheated on account of the system which prevailed so far. If the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is upheld it would result into the creation and perpetration of monopolies which would be directly contrary to the provisions contained in the court to see that the actions of the Government be interpreted in such 4 Directive Principles of the Constitution referred to hereabove. ( 12 ) AS far as the court is concerned it is also the bounden duty of the court to see that the actions of the Government be interpreted in such a right that the mandae of the Constitution is complied with. The court cannot be oblivious of the constitutional provisions and cannot by its orders perpetuate the monopoly which will be certainly detrimental to the common good. ( 13 ) NO other contention is raised. 14 In the result the petition requires to be rejected. The petition rejected. Notice discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. Petition dismissed. .