Judgment Ruma Pal, J. All the 9 writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact and as such were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The challenge in all the writ petitions is the revision of selling price of kerosene oil both with regard to kerosene oil agents and big dealers. 2. As far as the first petitioner namely, Jhargram Sub-Division Kerosene Oil Agents Association is concerned, the revision was affected by an order dated 28th June, 1994 issued by the Sub-divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Jhargram which reads as follows: "As desired by the D.C. F. & S., Midnapur under his memo. No. 3416/dt. 5.11.93, No. 1101/dt. 31.5.94, No. 1136/dt, 7.6.94 and No. 1277/dt. 28.6.94, the fixation of selling price of K. oil for the subdivision has been revised as table below with immediate effect in cancellation of this office No. 1673 (78)/dt. 16.11.93. Name of Agents Big Retail selling distributing selling dealers price per Ltr. points. price selling per KL price per KL All points Rs. 2625.33 Rs.2625.33 Rs.2.67 within of Jhargram 5 Kms. Sub-division Rs. 2.71 within 10 Kms. Rs.2.76 within 20 Kms. Rs. 2.79 above 20 Kms. 3. This order has been assailed on the grounds that it was contrary! to the direction of the High Court passed on, an earlier writ application, GO. (W) of 1993 [Jhargram Sub-division Kerosene Oil Agents Association vs. District Controller (F & S Midnapore]. The second submission is that the Sub-divisional Controller (F & S) has no jurisdiction to act on the "desire" of the District Controller. It is also submitted in this connection that the only competent authority who could have revised the selling price was the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Officer. Thirdly', it is submitted that the selling price of Kerosene Oil was revised without giving the persons affected any opportunity of being heard. Fourthly, it is submitted that in terms of the Kerosene Oil (Selling Price) Order 1970, the authorities were bound to reimburse all dealers for any extraordinary expenditure which the dealers incurred under conditions. It is said that in fact extraordinary expenditure was incurred on account of the distance between the petitioners place of business and the source of supply namely, Mourigram and Haldia. 4. It is said that in fact extraordinary expenditure was incurred on account of the distance between the petitioners place of business and the source of supply namely, Mourigram and Haldia. 4. The Midnapore District Kerosene Oil Agents Association has adopted the arguments of the Jhargram Kerosene Oil Agents Association and has, in addition, submitted that the ceiling price of Kerosene had been fixed contrary to the Governmental decision issued in this context. Reliance has been placed in Memo No. 513 (15) F. & S. dated 19.5.66 issued by the Food Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of West Bengal fixing the price of kerosene oil and transport expenses of kerosene oil agents on the basis of per kilo litre per kilo metre for a distance to be calculated on a round trip. It is said that by the impugned revision in transportation charges has been fixed only on the basis of a single trip. The Association has also contended that the representations made by it for a consideration of it's grievances in the fixation of the selling price of kerosene oil had not been considered by the authorities. 5. Learned Counsel for the Geonkhali Kerosene Oil Trading Agency and for Ganesh Chandra Das has argued that the impugned order revising the selling pries of kerosene oil had been passed during the pendency of the writ petitions filed by them challenging the failure of the respondent authorities to fix the selling price of kerosene oil in accordance with the directives issued by the High Court. It is said that compliance with the High Court directives cannot be avoided on the ground of public injury particularly when no appeal had been preferred by the State authorities against the decision of the High Court. It is further submitted that the West Bengal Tankers Association (Haldia Unit) an association registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act 1961, had issued a certificate to the effect that they charged 0.80 per kilo litre for carrying superior kerosene oil (S.K. Oil) from the Indian Oil Corporation's Depot at Haldia to different places of Haldia irrespective of the distance upto 30 kms. There was because the tank lorry transporting the S. K. Oil was in any event engaged for one day for loading from the IOC Depot to the point of delivery. There was because the tank lorry transporting the S. K. Oil was in any event engaged for one day for loading from the IOC Depot to the point of delivery. This Association has also submitted that this was a matter of fact which was not considered by the authorities concerned in issuing the impugned order of revision. 6. The remaining writ petitions have been filed by big dealers. They have all adopted the arguments made earlier and have complained of the sudden reduction in their margin of profits without notice particularly when there was no change in the nature and character of the supply affected. It is said that a wider margin of profit had been granted to retailers at the expense of big dealers in S. K. Oil. 7. The respondents on the other hand have submitted that the writ petitioners were in fact seeking to realise transportation charges twice over and make an unwarranted margin of profit which was not contemplated by the order of the High Court in the earlier writ application filed by the Jhargram Sub-divisional Kerosene Oil Agents Association. It is said that the margin of profit was all along Rs. 65/-. This margin of profit was contrary to a Central Government circular order which the margin of profit could not be more than Rs. 33.30. In order not to deprive the dealers and agents, the State Government split the Rs. 65/- into two components of Rs. 30.30 and Rs. 34.70 totalling Rs. 65 and named the first 'margin of profit' and the second as 'additional transportation charges'. It is pointed out that these additional transport charges had nothing to do with the transpo$tion charges which were paid to the agents and dealers at rates which were revised from time to time. Secondly it is submitted that all the orders issued including the impugned order had been passed with the approval of the District Magistrate. Reference has been made to memo issued by the District Controller (F & S) dated 5th November, 1993. 8. Thirdly it is submitted that there was some confusion created by the orders passed which were somewhat contradictory. It is said that taking into consideration these orders the impugned order had been passed. There was as such no violation of the order of this Court. 8. Thirdly it is submitted that there was some confusion created by the orders passed which were somewhat contradictory. It is said that taking into consideration these orders the impugned order had been passed. There was as such no violation of the order of this Court. According to the respondents, this is established by the fact that no contempt proceedings have been taken out by any of the petitioners for any alleged violation of any directions of the High Court. 9. The respondents have also submitted that under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, in fixing the price of an essential commodity the interest, of the public was the prime consideration, and that even if the price fixed was "demonstrably injurious" to the sellers of kerosene oil, it did not give such sellers the right to challenge the price fixed of price. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions in this context-Union of India vs. Cynamide Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1802 ; Union of India vs. Hindustan Aluminium Corp. Ltd.: AIR 1983 Cal 307 and M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills vs. Union of India: AIR 1986 SC 856 . It has been submitted by the respondents that in any event it was no one's case that by reason of the impugned revision of price their business had been hampered. 10. Kerosene Oil is an essential commodity within the meaning of s. 2(a) (viii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supply of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices : .. .. .. . . by order provide inter alia for regulating the supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. Clause (c) of sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the Act gives the Central Government the specific power to provide by order for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold. 11. Section 5 of the Act allows for the delegation of the power to make orders under s. 3 by the Central Government to inter alia, the State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government. 11. Section 5 of the Act allows for the delegation of the power to make orders under s. 3 by the Central Government to inter alia, the State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government. Such delegated powers may be exercised concurrently with the Central Government in such a manner as may be specified in the order of delegation. As far as the State Government of West Bengal is concerned the power is delegated under s. 5 of the Act by the Central Government by notification No. SRO 950 dated 30th April 1955. The State Government was to exercise the power subject to the condition that before making any order relating to any matters specified in inter alia clause (a) of sub-S. (2) of s. 3 the State Government shall obtain a prior concurrence of the Central Government. 12. In exercise of the powers conferred by s. 3 the Central Government made the Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order 1966. This was superseded by the Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order, 1970 with effect from 1st June 1970. The 1970 Order is still in force. The Order extends to the whole of India. Clause 3 of the Order provides that on and from the date of the commencement of the order no dealer shall sell kerosene to any person at a price in excess of the declared price. "Declared Price" has been defined in clause 2(b) of the order as follows: (b) "declared price" in relation to a variety of kerosene sold in any area [means the maximum selling price declared in accordance with the provisions of Cl. 3]- (1) by the State Government or District Collector in the case of an area in State, or (2) by the Administrator of a Union Territory in the case of an area in a Union Territory, or (3) by such officer as the State Government or the Administrator of a Union Territory, as the case may be, may empower in this behalf as the price at which that variety of kerosene is to be sold by a dealer in that area from the 1st day of June, 1970, or from the date of the declaration of price by the aforesaid authorities ;" 13. Under Clause 3, the declared price shall inter alia include: (a) the schedule price which means the basic selling price at the nearest main port or refinery ; (b) the increase or decrease, if any, in Central duties after the 1st day of June, 1970 as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; (c) (i) the rate of dealers' commission at rupees eight per kilolitre ; (ii) reimbursement, if allowed by the State Government or with the previous approval of the State Government, by the District Collector, or the Deputy Commissioner of the area, as the case may be, or if allowed by the Administrator of a Union territory, by notification in the Official Gazette of any extraordinary expenditure which the dealers may have to incur under local conditions; (d) (ii) the road transportation charges actually payable on the 1st day of June, 1970, for the transportation of supplied of kerosene by road by the dealer from the nearest storage or selling point of any oil company to the place of sale, as the State Government [or with previous approval of the State Government of District Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of the area] or the Administrator of a Union territory, as the case may be, may, having regard to the transportation charges payable for the transportation of goods by the shortest route, allow and the increase or decrease therein, if any, after that date." 14. In 1970 the basic ceiling seling price of kerosene in bulk per kilolitre ex-storage point as far as Calcutta was concerned, was fixed at Rs. 484.78 and Rs. 793.55 in respect of superior kerosene and inferior kerosene respectively. Flat transportation charges in rupees per kilolitre in respect of both superior and inferior was fixed at Rs. 48,4510. This was substituted by S.O. 791(E) dated 15th October, 1990 with effect from 15th October 1990 under which the basic ceiling selling prices of kerosene in bulk per kilolitre ex-main port/refinery as far as Calcutta was concerned was fixed at Rs. 2466.70. 15. In 1976 the dealers' commission on kerosene oil had been fixed at Rs. 24 per kilolitre as far as agents and stockists were concerned. The commission of retailers was fixed at Rs. 31. 2466.70. 15. In 1976 the dealers' commission on kerosene oil had been fixed at Rs. 24 per kilolitre as far as agents and stockists were concerned. The commission of retailers was fixed at Rs. 31. This was revised with effect from 1.8.1983 by raising the commission or margin of, profit as far as the agents and stockists were concerned, to Rs. 30.30 per kilolitre and Rs. 39.70 as far as the retailer was concerned. A circular was issued to that effect to the State Governments by the Central Government. Additionally, it was stated : "5. If any of the States/Union Territories have revised the rates of commission of their own, these should be reworked to bring them in line with these guidelines." 16. As far as the District of Midnapore is concerned, however, the agents and retailers of that district had been getting Rs. 65 per kilolitre and Rs. 70 per kilolitre since 1981 on account of margin of profit! commission. After the receipt of the order dated 23.4.1983 the matter was taken up by the District Controller of Food and Supplies. He issued a memo being memo No. 1198(50) dated 31.5.1988 revising the transport charges for kerosene oil agents and retailers upwards. The memo referred to the approval of the District Magistrate dated 22.5.1988. The Sub-divisional Officer and the Sub-divisional Officer of Food and Supplies (F & S) of the District were requested to calculate the retail selling rate per kilolitre of kerosene oil on the basis of the revised transport charges at each block after taking the actual distance from supply point (Mourigram, Haldia) to the distribution point. It was also stated that while fixing the margin of profit it' should be borne in mind that the margin of profit had been fixed for agents and retailers at Rs. 30.30 per kilolitre and Rs. 39.70 per kilolitre but that: "The agents and retailers of this district have been getting Rs. 65/per K.L. and Rs. 70 per K.L. respectively on this account since 1981. Therefore the same should not be reduced." 17. In 1988 therefore the maximum selling rate of kerosene oil ex-Haldia and ex-Mourigram by agents was Rs. 2763.47 per kilolitre and Rs. 2785.32 per kilolitre. 65/per K.L. and Rs. 70 per K.L. respectively on this account since 1981. Therefore the same should not be reduced." 17. In 1988 therefore the maximum selling rate of kerosene oil ex-Haldia and ex-Mourigram by agents was Rs. 2763.47 per kilolitre and Rs. 2785.32 per kilolitre. The composite elements of the maximum rate was (1) the Government price (including sales tax) (2) Agent's margin in profit (including barrel depreciation, leakage, handling expenses, other expenses including overhead and incidental charges) and (3) transport charges. 18. It appears that a writ application was moved before the Calcutta High Court by the big dealers of the District of Midnapore relating to the margin of profit and transport charges. This writ application was disposed of by a direction on the authorities concerned to consider the dealers' prayer for margin of profit without affecting the consumer price. Accordingly by an order dated 19th January 1993 after considering the representations made by the big dealers and retailers the selling price of kerosena oil as far as agents/big dealers were concerned, was revised. The revision of transport charges and selling prices as set out to the order dated 19th January 1993 reads as follows : AGENT EX-MOURIGRAM INSTLLATION Stand a Basic Margin Addl. Cased price of profit Transport charge 1 to 30 KM 2378.66 30.30 34.70 31-100 2378.66 30.30 34.70 101-150 2378.66 30.30 34.70 151-200 2378.66 30.30 34.70 201 and 2378.66 30.30 34.70 above Existing Transport Total Total Transport charge all sale saleable Charge owed with able price per Per KL enhancement price ltr. Of 50% per KL 40/- 54.00 2497.66 2.50 45/- 101.25 2544.66 2.54 110/- 148.00 2591.66 2.59 130/- 175.00 60 per 175.50 KL per 81 p KM per KL - - Per KM - - 19. A similar revision was made in respect of selling price of kerosene oil at EX-HALDIA Installation. The revision remained the same except that the basic price differed. The order refers to the approval or the District Magistrate (Midnapore) to the revision. The approved price structure was to take effect from 25.10.93. 20. It may be noted that the element of "additional transport charges" was introduced at a flat rate for the first time in 1993. It also appears that the introduction of additional transport charges did not relate to transport charges as such which were enhanced by 35%. The approved price structure was to take effect from 25.10.93. 20. It may be noted that the element of "additional transport charges" was introduced at a flat rate for the first time in 1993. It also appears that the introduction of additional transport charges did not relate to transport charges as such which were enhanced by 35%. It is also noteworthy that the margin of profit is fixed as per the Central Government directive at Rs. 30.30 which added to the new element of additional transport, charges amounted to Rs. 65. None of the petitioners were able to explain the necessity fur the introduction of "additional transport charges" or the significance of such introduction when the transport charge form a separate specific head and which was also enhanced by 35%. 21. The Jhargram Sub-Division Kerosene Oil Agents Association however, moved a writ application before this Court challenging the order dated 19.1.93 (hereafter referred to as the Second Writ Petition). It was contended by the writ petitioner that the margin of provit had been reduced from Rs. 65/- to Rs. 30/- arbitrarily. The respondent authorities were not represented by Counsel. Despite directions having been obtained on affidavit was filed nor were the respondents represented by the Counsel at the hearing. The Court accordingly passed an order on 2.8.93 disposing of the writ application in the following terms: "As there is no return to the writ petition by filing affidavit, it appears before this Court that the said decision of the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore, was arbitrary, unjust and should be set aside. The respondent No.1, District Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore, is accordingly directed to maintain the margin of profit of Kerosene Oil Agents at Rs. 66/- per kilolitre and to increase the transport charge at 35% in respect of the petitioner Association and its members. The impugned order dated January 10, 1993, in so far as it reduces the margin of profit from Rs. 65/- to Rs. 30/- per kilolitre is set aside and the respondents are directed to retain the existing margin of profit at Rs. 65/- as revised in the year 1988." 22. This order as it stands, did not refer to the element of "additional transport charges". In other words, the respondent authorities could have maintained the price structure prevailing as on 1988 in so far as it related to the declared selling price. 23. 65/- as revised in the year 1988." 22. This order as it stands, did not refer to the element of "additional transport charges". In other words, the respondent authorities could have maintained the price structure prevailing as on 1988 in so far as it related to the declared selling price. 23. The matter was however mentioned by the Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner on 18th August 1993. It is not clear whether the matter was mentioned upon notice to the respondent authorities. A major change was effected in the order dated 2.8.93 by clarifying that the impugned order dated 19.1.93 in so far as it related to additional transport charges will remain unchanged. 24. Thus the petitioner obtained additional Rs. 34.70 in addition to Rs. 65/- per kilo litre quite apart from 35% enhancement of the transport charges. 25. This order was communicated to the office of the District Controller (Food & Supplies) Midnapore on 29.11.93. The present grievance of the petitioner is based upon the order dated 18.10.93. 26. In my view having regard to the statutory provisions as noted above it was not open to the State Government to revise the declared price except in accordance with the direction of the Central Government. It would follow that there could be no question of granting the Agents/Distributors a larger margin of profit than that which had been fixed by the Central Government. 27. Before the impugned order was passed on 28.6.94 by the Sub-division Controller (Food and Supplies) Jhargram an order was passed by the District Controller (Food and Supplies) Midnapore with the approval of the District Magistrate Midnapore on 5.11.93. The Office Order dated 19.1.93 was set aside. The margin of profit was maintained at Rs. 65/per kilo litre and the transport charges at 35% was increased in respect of the members of the Jhargram Sub-Division Kerosene Oil Agents Association. The Sub-Division Controllers were directed to calculate the retail selling price on the basis of the order dated 5.11.93 and introduced the same by 10.11.93 positively. 28. It was pursuant to this directive that the selling price of kerosene oil was notified by the impugned order by the Sub-Division Controller (Food and Supplies) Jhargram. 29. In the order dated 5.11.93 the District Controller has specifically referred to the Order of the High Court dated 2.8.93 and has recorded strict compliance with such order. 28. It was pursuant to this directive that the selling price of kerosene oil was notified by the impugned order by the Sub-Division Controller (Food and Supplies) Jhargram. 29. In the order dated 5.11.93 the District Controller has specifically referred to the Order of the High Court dated 2.8.93 and has recorded strict compliance with such order. There can be no doubt however that the subsequent direction of the High Court dated 18.10.93 had not been implemented. According to the respondent authorities the grant of additional transport charges had been stopped in the interest of consumers availing the rate of commission/margin of profit in respect of the kerosene oil unaffected. 30. The first submission of the Jhargram Sub-division Kerosene Oil Agents Association may be correct in form but without any effect in substance. In substance the issue raises two further questions namely the effect of the government not complying with the order of the Court and secondly, whether this court is bound to direct compliance with the order passed on the second writ application. 31. If the government (petitioner) had taken proceedings in contempt and the respondents had been found guilty of such contempt there could be no question but that any action in contempt of an order of Court would be without any effect and set aside on that ground alone. To succeed in contempt proceedings the petitioner would have to establish a wilful and deliberate violation on the part of the respondents. There has been no such application made by the petitioner and the Court will not embark upon an enquiry as to what would have been the out-come of an application for contempt if made. The second aspect of the matter is whether this Court is bound is issue a similar order as the order passed in the earlier writ application. In my opinion I am not so bound. First the orders passed on the earlier application of Jhargram Kerosene Oil Agents Association is, as far as this Court is concerned, of only persuasive value. Secondly the only reason which had persuaded the Learned Judge to pass the earlier order dated 2nd August 1993 and 18th October 1993 was the absence of the lawyer for the State respondents and failure on the part of the State respondents to file any opposition to the writ application. Secondly the only reason which had persuaded the Learned Judge to pass the earlier order dated 2nd August 1993 and 18th October 1993 was the absence of the lawyer for the State respondents and failure on the part of the State respondents to file any opposition to the writ application. Unfortunately the relevant statutory provisions had not been drawn to the notice of the Learned Judge before the orders dt. 2.8.93 and 18.10.93 were passed. Further more, the issues which arose for determination in that case were in fact covered by decisions of the Supreme Court and in particular the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Cynamide India Ltd : AIR 1987 SC 1802 . 32. As already noted it is the Central Government which had fixed the margin of profit under the provisions of s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 read with the provisions of the Kerosene (Fixation of Selling price) Order 1970. The order specifically provides that no dealers shall sell kerosene to any person in excess of the declared price. The margin of profit had been fixed as far back in 1983 and all States were required to comply with these guide-lines. The State of West Bengal was bound to comply with such directives. These statutory provisions were overlooked at the time of passing the orders dated 2.8.93 and 18.10.93. The Central Government is not a party to the proceedings before me and it is doubtful whether the Central Government was included as a party in the earlier proceedings. The margin of profit as decided by the Central Government could not have been struck-down as arbitrary in its absence. Similarly this Court cannot consider the challenge to the decision of the Central Government in the absence of the Central Government. The State authorities were merely implemented the decision taken by the Central Government in 1983. 33, In any event as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Cynamide India Ltd. (supra) :- "Price-fixation is neither the function nor the forte of the Court. We concern ourselves neither with the policy nor with the rate. . . . . the machanics of price fixation are the concern of the executive and we leave it to them. And, we will not revaluate the considerations even if the prices are demonstrably injurious to some manufactures or producers." 34. We concern ourselves neither with the policy nor with the rate. . . . . the machanics of price fixation are the concern of the executive and we leave it to them. And, we will not revaluate the considerations even if the prices are demonstrably injurious to some manufactures or producers." 34. The Supreme Court had also held that in determining whether the price of kerosene oil rightly fixed or not it is the public interest which reigns supreme because : "Those who are most vitally affected are the consumer public. It is for their protection that price-fixation is resorted to and any increase in price affects them as seriously as any decrease does a manufacturer, if not more." 35. There can be no doubt but that the additional Rs. 34.70 per kilo litre which has been sought to be claimed by the writ petitioner over and above transport charges and their margin of profit would in the circumstances of the case give result to a sharp rise in the price of kerosene as a result of which the object of controlling the price of kerosene namely the protection of public would be defeated. 36. It is well established that a decision rendered ignoring relevant statutory provisions or contrary to authority would be a decision given 'per incuriam'. An held in the decision of the Court appeal in Yound vs. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. 1994 (2) All E.R. 293 at 300 :- "But where the court is satisfied that an earlier decision was given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or a rule having the force of a statute the position is very different. It cannot, in our opinion, be right to say that in such a case the court is entitled to disregard the statutory provision and is bound to follow a decision of its own given when that provision was not present to its mind. Cases of this description are examples of decisions given per incuriam." 37. This decision has found favour and the principles therein have been affirmed by the Supreme Court in A.R. Antule vs. R. S. Nayak : AIR 1988 SC 1531 at paragraph 44. Cases of this description are examples of decisions given per incuriam." 37. This decision has found favour and the principles therein have been affirmed by the Supreme Court in A.R. Antule vs. R. S. Nayak : AIR 1988 SC 1531 at paragraph 44. It was said by the Supreme Court :- "Per incuriam are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the Court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, that account to be demonstrably wrong." 38. For the reasons already stated I am compelled to hold that the earlier orders dated 2.8.93 and 18.10.93 were in fact decisions per incuriam and legally wrong and this Court is not bound to follow the game. Having held that the earlier orders were legally wrong, the Court cannot direct compliance with such orders. The first submission of the writ petitioners is therefore rejected. 39. The second submission of the Jhargram Kerosene Oil Agents Association is also without any substance. First it appears that the impugned order had been passed with the approval of the District Magistrate as already noted The third submission cannot be accepted by reason of the decision of the Supreme Court in Cynamide India Ltd. The Supreme Court has held that pride fixation is in the nature of legislative action. There was as such no question of violation of principles of natural justice. 40. As far as the question of "extra-ordinary expenditure" is concerned it is not for this Court to consider the special local conditions obtaining in the District of Midnapore. These are facts would be out side the of enquiry under Article 226. However it may be noted that in granting the petitioners' additional transport charges over and above the margin profit as fixed by the Central Government it may be said that the government were seeking to reimburse the dealers and agents of kerosene oil in the district of Midnapore. 41. Midnapore District Kerosene Oil Agents Association's (referred to hereafter as Midnapore) submission as well as the submission of Geonkhali) that the different aspects of the price fixation had not been taken into consideration in fixing the transportation charge element of the declared price are not matters for investigation in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 41. Midnapore District Kerosene Oil Agents Association's (referred to hereafter as Midnapore) submission as well as the submission of Geonkhali) that the different aspects of the price fixation had not been taken into consideration in fixing the transportation charge element of the declared price are not matters for investigation in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However it may be noted that subsequent to the 1966 Memo issued fixing the transportation charges of kerosene oil bound to trip numerous other memos have been issued enchancing, revising and altering the basis of the transportation charges by the Government. In fact the 1970 order superseded earlier directions and laid down basis for calculation of transport charges. 42. The petitioners have submitted that by reason of the prices as fixed they were suffering loss. As stated by the Supreme Court in M/s. New India Sugar Works vs. State of U.P. : AIR 1981 SC 998 : "The policy of price control has for its dominant object equitable distribution and availability of the commodity at fair price so as to benefit the consumers. It is manifest that individual interests, however, precious, they may be must yield to the larger interest of the community namely, in the instance case, the large body of the consumers of sugar. In fact, even if the petitioners have to bear some loss there can be no question of the restrictions imposed on the petitioners being unreasonable. " 43. For all these reasons the contentions of the respondents must be upheld. The writ applications are accordingly dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. 44. Let xerox copies of this Judgment be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties on observing usual formalities. Writ petition dismissed.