Judgment S. Roy, B. P. Singh, JJ. 1. For maintaining supply of coal to the consumers in the district of Ranchi, there are depot holders and dump holders, by the order as contained in Annexure 14 dated 3-12-1988, which was issued under the signature of respondent No.3, it was notified that the deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent No.2) had decided that after excluding the quota of coal allotted to educational and other institutions, the remaining quota would be divided in the ratio of 55% and 45%, former to the depot holders and the latter to the dump holders, and they shall lift coal according to that ratio, from the collieries. 2. The petitioners who are dump holders have challenged the validity of this order (Annexure 14) on the ground that in view of the decision of the state Government the dump holders alone are entitled to lift coal from the collieries, and respondent No.2 could not have passed any order giving that right to the depot holders also. In Annexure 14, there is reference to the decisions of the State Government dated 25-3-1987 and 7-6-1987 contained in Annexures 5 and 6 to this writ petition respectively. Annexure 14 has been issued on the basis of those decisions contained in Annexures 5 and 6. It is, therefore, necessary to notice those two annexures. It is also necessary to notice the agreement entered into by and between the State Government and the petitioners to see whether there was any clause which gave dump holders monopoly to lift coal from the collieries. 3. Annexure 5 dated 25-3-1987 was issued by the Food, Supply and commerce Department, Government of Bihar. Firstly, in this annexure there is reference to the departmental letter dated 28-5-1985 which is Annexure 8 to this writ petition. By Annexure 8 all the District Magistrates were informed that in the districts where system of dump holders have been introduced, they alone would lift coal from the collieries. In Annexure 8 it was further stated that if the dump holders were not able to lift full quota of coal, arrangements should be made to lift coal by retail traders, i. e. , depot holders. In Annexure 8 it was further stated that if the dump holders were not able to lift full quota of coal, arrangements should be made to lift coal by retail traders, i. e. , depot holders. With reference to this decision, it was stated in Annexure 5 that it was experienced that in some districts the depot holders are not working satisfactorily and one of the reasons for this was the monopoly of the dump holders. The Government, therefore, reviewed the system and decided that both the dump and depot holders should be entitled to lift coal so that monopoly of dump holders may end. In view of this decision, it was stated in Annexure 5 that such depot holders whose work has been found satisfactory and who are financially sound should be also allowed to lift coal directly from the collieries. Direction was given to see that the total quantity of coal was lifted and effective arrangement for its distribution was made. Annexure 6 is again a letter of the Department of Food, Supply and Commerce, Bihar, dated 17th June, 1987 to all the District Magistrates. In Annexure 6, it was stated that in the districts where the period of agreement of dump holders had expired or was going to expire, action should be taken in terms of the decision of the State Government as contained in annexure 5. It was further stated that what will be the ratio on the basis of which dump holders and the depot holders would be required to lift coal from the collieries, would be decided by the district authorities taking into consideration the situation in their respective districts. Discretion was also given to the district authorities to increase this ratio according to the need of the districts. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the districts in which system of dump holders was properly functioning, no discretion was given to the district authorities to allow depot holders also to lift coal from the colliery. This contention does not appear to be correct. We have noticed in detail the contents of both Annexures 5 and 6 in which guidelines were laid down. It, inter alia, provides for allowing the depot holders also to lift coal from collieries. This contention does not appear to be correct. We have noticed in detail the contents of both Annexures 5 and 6 in which guidelines were laid down. It, inter alia, provides for allowing the depot holders also to lift coal from collieries. The State Government was particular that the dump holders did not acquire monopoly in that regard, and discretion was given to the district authorities to apportion the ratio in which coal would be lifted by both the dump and depot holders, taking into consideration the situation in concerned district. 5. The petitioners can succeed if they can show that in terms of the agreement they, i. e. , the dump holders, alone were entitled to lift coal from collieries. Photo copy of the agreement dated 12-1-1988 filed by the petitioners is Annexure 16. It would appear from that annexure that there is no clause which prohibited the State from appointing persons other than dump holders to lift coal from collieries. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the definition of coal dump holders in Bihar Trade articles (Licences Unification, Order, 1984, it is only the dump holders who are entitled to supply coal to retail dealers, i. e. , depot holders. In that order coal dump holder means a person or firm appointed by and oa behalf of the Government as such, who is engaged in the business of storing coal from collieries on the basis of the selection made by Government or by any authority empowered by the Central Government for sale to retail dealers. All that the definition provides is that dump holders must sell coal to retail dealers. There is nothing in the Order which prohibits the State Government from allowing retail dealers, i, e. , depot holders from lifting coal from the colliery. But in view of the definition, such retail dealers i. e. , depot holders, cannot sell to other depot holders. There is no allegation on behalf of the petitioners that the depot holders who have been selected for lifting coal from the collieries have been authorised to sell or re sell coal to other holders. Even if it were so such depot holders may for the purposes of the Unification order, be considered to be dump holders. That however does not in any manner prevent the Government from permitting depot holder to lift coal directly from the collieries. Even if it were so such depot holders may for the purposes of the Unification order, be considered to be dump holders. That however does not in any manner prevent the Government from permitting depot holder to lift coal directly from the collieries. The definition of Coal Dump Holder, therefore also does not help the petitioners. 6. Reference was made on behalf of the petitioners to earlier decision of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.2069 of 1988 (R) disposed of on 6-10-1988. That writ petition was filed by dump holders. There is reference in that order to the order passed in C. W. J. C. No.1430 of 1988 (R) disposed of on 27-9-1988. Photo copies of these orders are Annexures 11 and 10 respectively. In the latter case, the depot holders had challenged the order of the State government, that they shall purchase coal from dump holders. The Bench observed that the High Court was not competent to interfere with the policy decision of the State Government, subject-matter of that writ petition. It appears from the order that primarily that writ petition was filed by depot holders on the ground that they were required to purchase coal from the dump holders at the rate higher than that at which they were required to sell it to the consumers. It was observed that it was not expected that the depot holders would sell at a rate lower than that at which they were required to purchase it from the dump holders. In the latter case, which was filed by the dump holders, notice of the earlier decision was taken and it was observed that the authorities concerned shall act in accordance with the Government policy then formulated for supply of coal to dump holders directly from the collieries. In our opinion (one of us was partly to both the orders) no observation was made in either of the cases that the Government could not permit the depot holders to lift coal directly from the collieries, if such a policy decision was taken by the State Government. In fact, it was held that the Courts interference in such a matter was unwarranted. 7. It appears from perusal of Annexure 11 that case was filed by the dump holders because the district authorities were not passing any appropriate order to supply coal to the dump holders. In fact, it was held that the Courts interference in such a matter was unwarranted. 7. It appears from perusal of Annexure 11 that case was filed by the dump holders because the district authorities were not passing any appropriate order to supply coal to the dump holders. Neither Annexure 10 nor Annexure it is of any assistance to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, referred to the counter-affidavit, Annexure 9 filed in C. W. J. C. No.1430 of 1988 (R) in support of his contention that the policy decision of the state Government was that coal dump holders alone were entitled to lift coal. We have noticed both Annexures 5 and 6 which contain the policy decision. The Court is not bound to accept the interpretation of those two annexures given by the deponent in Annexure 9. It is essentially for the Government to decide what arrangements it will make for equitable distribution of coal in the state. The policy evolved by it may undergo changes in the light of the experience of the working of such policy. As long as the policy is not arbitrary and unreasonable, and does not offend any statutory provision on the rights of citizens, interference by Courts is not warranted. 8. We may notice that from time to time the total quantity of coal that {he petitioners may lift from the collieries has progressively increased, viz. , the total quota for the month of July, 1988 was 2949 Metric Tons, whereas the quota of February, 1989 has been increased to 4382 Metric Tons. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.