In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to allot equal and proportio­nate quota of advertisement to the petitioners as are being allotted to other similar dailies of the State. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the first petitioner a Private Limited Company owns an English daily 'Sentinel'. Second petitioner is the printer and publisher of the said daily. The petitioners claim that their said paper is one of the highest circulated English dailies published from Guwahati and circulated throughout the North Eastern Region and also to places outside the region. Ever since its inception the said daily has been drawing public attention to various problems as well as public issues faced by the people of the North Eastern Region. The said daily publishes news items, reports, cases of public scandals involving various Government Departments, through investigative journalism and also has revealed and unearthed various irregularities and public scandals in a fearless manner. Because of the fear­less and upright attitude, the paper has drawn the attention of the public and has become popular among various cross sections of readers. 3. At the time of filing of this writ petition, the paper had a circulation of about 42,000, Each issue of the said paper brings out a minimum of 8 pages of size 39.5 cm x 50 cm x 8 standard columns and also it brings out more than 350 issues in a year. Over and above, it also brings out two weekly supplements each on every Saturday and Sunday. The price of the paper is at present is Rs. 1.50 per issue, exclusive of air surcharge. The said paper publishes a late edition for the city of Guwahati. For smooth distribution of the paper amongst the readers all over the North Eastern Region the 'Sentinel has been maintaining its distribution ofBce at various places, such as, at Dibrugarh, Jorhat and Shillong etc. 4. For allotment of Government advertisement amongst different catego­ries of newspapers an advertisement policy was adopted and issued Annexure A resolution dated 21.8.86 by the second respondent, the primary object of releasing the Government advertisement has been stated in the resolution as to secure widest possible coverage of contents of advertisement. 4. For allotment of Government advertisement amongst different catego­ries of newspapers an advertisement policy was adopted and issued Annexure A resolution dated 21.8.86 by the second respondent, the primary object of releasing the Government advertisement has been stated in the resolution as to secure widest possible coverage of contents of advertisement. The purpose of releasing the Government advertisements in newspapers is more served in publishing it in newspaper with higher circulation Under the said policy, in order to receive Government advertisement, the daily must have a paid circulation at least 5,000 copies with a minimum 325 issues in a year with 4 pages with print area of not less than 45 cm. x 7 standard columns, devoting at least 60% of the print area for reading and other non-advertisement materials. The petitioners' said paper fulfills all the conditions laid down in the policy. 5. Under the said policy, classified and display advertisement are being issued by the third respondent and no Government Department can directly issue advertisement to any newspaper. The necessary funds for this are placed in the annual budget of the Directorate of Information and Public Relation and the Directorate makes payment of advertisement bills. At the beginning of every financial year a list of news papers approved by the State Government for advertisement is prepared by the Directorate and the petitioners' -Sentinel' name appears in the said list. According to the petitioners, over the last six months the Government drastically reduced the number of advertisement allotted to 'The Sentinel' while similar news dailies published from Guwahati and belonging to the same category have been allotted with large number of classified and display advertisements. The petitioners' daily was allotted less advertisements in the corresponding period from January to June 1993. The petitioners used to get equal number of advertisements more or less like that of 'The Assam Tribune.' In Annexure B to D to the petition, the petitioners have given a detail statement regarding allotment of Government advertise­ments to various newspapers. 6. The petitioners further state that another English daily 'The Assam Tribune' having similar publication and circulation or even lower category of dailies like 'North East Times' and 'Assam Express' have been allotted with much higher number of advertisement. During the period from January to June 1993 a total number of 50? 6. The petitioners further state that another English daily 'The Assam Tribune' having similar publication and circulation or even lower category of dailies like 'North East Times' and 'Assam Express' have been allotted with much higher number of advertisement. During the period from January to June 1993 a total number of 50? Government advertisements had been allotted to the Assam Tribune, 226 number of advertisements to Assam Express and 105 number of advertisements to North East Times, whereas the petitioners' said paper was allotted only 73 number of advertisements. By Annexure E the petitioners showed that an English daily 'North East Times' received 105 numbers of Government advertisements, which is having far less circulation than that of the 'Sentinel', Though the petitioners' daily 'Sentinel' fulfills all the conditions as required by Annexure A resolution, the Government has drastically reduced the number of advertisements in comparison to the adver­tisements allotted to them in the corresponding period of the previous year. Because of sudden tapering down the number of advertisements to the petitioners' said newspaper, they have been put in great financial constraint. Situated thus, the Managing Director of the first petitioner by a letter dated June 3, 1993 informed the fourth respondent about drastic reduction of allotment of Government advertisements; whereas other local dailies had been favoured with high number of advertisements and, therefore, the fourth respondent was requested to review the matter and ensure regular and suitable release of advertisements for the 'Sentinel'. However, fourth respondent did not pay any heed to it and hence the petitioners have approached this Court. 7. This Court issued Rule and directed the fourth respondent to allot advertisements in a fair manner according to their norms. The petitioners state that in spite of the order of this Court, the fourth respondent has not complied with the directions of this Court. 8. I have heard both sides. Mr. PK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners had placed before this Court a statement showing the number of advertisements issued by 'Janasanjog' to the main newspapers during the period from 1.11.93 to 31.12.93 and also from 1.1.94 to 19.3.94. The main contention of Mr. Goswami was that the Government adopted a policy for giving Gover­nment advertisements by Annexure A resolution dated 21st August, 1986. The main contention of Mr. Goswami was that the Government adopted a policy for giving Gover­nment advertisements by Annexure A resolution dated 21st August, 1986. The petitioners fulfilled all the conditions and requirement of the policy and there could be no reason to deny the petitioners the proper allotment of advertise­ments. According to him, tapering down the quantity of advertisement to the petitioners' said daily was for the purpose other than the purpose mentioned in Annexure A resolution. This was done for an oblique purpose just to silence the paper which was vocal against the wrong action of the Government. Mr, Goswami further submitted that the petitioners' daily might have incurred the displeasure of the authority having power to give advertisement because of various articles, news, reports and criticism against various departments of the-Government. The other contention of Mr. Goswami was that denying to give adequate quantity of advertisements to the said paper was nothing but to hit the weakest part of the institution, ie financial aspect, thereby the petitioners' daily was put to great financial constraint. If such action was allowed to continue the petitioners' paper would not be able to meet the cost by selling it at the present price. In other words, because of the action of the Government the petitioners would be compelled to raise the price of the daily which might indirectly lower the circulation and ultimately they apprehended that the paper might not be able to withstand the financial burden and in due course it might die down. Mr. Goswami further stated that this was a direct attack on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India and as such, action of the State Government should not be allowed to continue. The State Government was duty bound to give equal treatment to the newspaper similarly situated. 9. The Government or any other instrumentality of the State agency is required to exercise power and discretion subject to the public law limitation and the Government cannot act arbitrarily or enter into relationship with any person it likes at its sweet will but its action must be in conformity with some norms and principles, which meets the test of reasonableness. The Article 14 strikes arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily, involve negation of equality. The Article 14 strikes arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily, involve negation of equality. The Government action must not be arbitrary and must be based on some rational and relevant principles, which is non-discrimi­natory and must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration. But according to Mr. Goswami from the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be apparent that the State Government acted most arbitrarily and in complete violation of the equality clause of the Constitution and also contrary to Annexure A resolution. 10. Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Government Advocate supported the action of the Government, however, he could not show why the Government reduced the quantity of advertisement to the petitioners' said daily. The State had not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. The case remained part heard for a consi­derable period and during this period also no attempt was made to file counter affidavit. Besides, at the time of issuance of Rule on 9.7.93. the Rule was made returnable within two months and the learned Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. At the time of issuance of Rule this Court directed production of the case records, but that was also not done to enable this Court to see "if there was any reason for reduction of quantity of advertisements to the petitioners said daily in comparison with other similar newspaper, viz; the Assam Tribune. Various dailies, namely, the North East Times and Assam Express having far less circulations than the petitioners have been allotted more advertisements than the petitioners' said daily. 11. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition the petitioners have specifically stated that their paper the 'Sentinel' has a circulation of about 42,000 copies. Again in paragraph 8 of the petition they have stated that "while all other similarly circumstanced news dailies published from Guwahati and belonging to the same category, have been allotted with a large number of classified and display advertisements, the respondents have allotted far less advertisement in the corresponding period from January to June, 1993 to the news daily in question". The petitioners further stated that "while in the year 1992 as many as 422 Government advertisements were allotted to the 'Sentinel' during the corresponding period of six months, in the current year only 73 advertisements have been allotted to it." Again the petitioners in paragraph 10A have stated that "It is noteworthy that some of the English dailies such as Assam Express, the North East Observer, the News Front, which have far less circulation than that of the Sentinel, have been allotted with advertisements several times more than what has been allotted to the Sentinel. Pertinently, the said newspapers do not even belong to the 'big' category and even 'medium' category, circulation wise." These averments have not been controverted by the State Government by filing counter affidavit; even the records have not been produced to show that the statements quoted above are incorrect. 12. In this connection, Mr. Goswami placed reliance on a decision in Smti Naseem Bano vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2592 . In the said case the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the effect of non-filing of counter affidavit in a writ petition. The Apex Court observed thus : "...Since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 ia their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the writ petition that 40% of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion inasmuch as the said averments had not been controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents." Exactly, this has happened in the instant case also. There being specific aver­ments in the petition, the State Government did not make any attempt to controvert the allegations and Government Advocate also could not give any reply to it. Following the decision of the Apex Court in Naseem Bano (supra), I hold that the contentions made in the writ petition have been admitted by the State Government in the absence of any counter affidavit. 13. Next submission of Mr. Following the decision of the Apex Court in Naseem Bano (supra), I hold that the contentions made in the writ petition have been admitted by the State Government in the absence of any counter affidavit. 13. Next submission of Mr. Goswami was that normally a paper could not meet the cost not to speak of profit from the price of the paper, unless there was a financial backing by way of giving advertisement from State Government it would be very difficult, may be almost impossible for a paper to thrive when there was competition among the papers. By reducing the number of advertisements the State Government had hit the weakest part of the organisation, namely, the finance. The facts and circumstances also justified that the State Government had made it with an ulterior motive to suppress the news paper or either by closing down the newspaper or com­pelling them to yield to the pressure of the Government. Therefore, this would directly violate the Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. 14. In support of his contention Mr. Goswami has placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) Express Newspaper Ltd. vs. Union of India, Alk 1958 SC 578; (ii) Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 ; (iii) Bannet Coleman and Co. Ltd. vs. Hindustan Times Ltd, AIR 1973 SC 106 ; (iv) Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & others, (1985) 1 SCC 641 ; (v) Dainik Sambad vs. State of Tripura, 1988 (1) GLJ 486; and (vi) Printers (Mysore) Ltd. vs. Asstt Commercial Tax Officer, Judgments Today (1994 (1). 15. In Express Newspaper Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court dealt with the freedom of speech and expression. After discussing some American case laws, Supreme Court observed : "While therefore no such immunity from the general laws can be claimed by the press it would certainly not be legitimate to subject the press to laws which take away or abridge the freedom of speech and expression or which would curtail circulation and thereby narrow the scope of dissemination of information, or fetter its freedom to choose its means of exercising the right or would undermine its independence by driving it to seek Government aid. Laws which single out the press for laying upon it excessive and prohibitive burdens which would restrict the circulation, impose a penalty on its right to choose the instruments for its exercise or to seek an alternative media, prevent newspapers from being started and ultimately drive the press to seek Government aid in order to survive, would therefore be struck down as unconstitutional." 16. In Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with freedom of speech and expression and it was argued for the State that there were two aspects of activities of newspapers - the dissemination of news and views and the commercial aspect. These two aspects, it was said, were different from one another and under clause (6) of Article 19 restrictions could be imposed on the latter right in the interest of the general public. The Supreme Court observed thus: "It may well be within the power of the State to place, in the interest of the general public, restrictions upon the right of a citizen to carry on business but it is not open to the State to achieve this object by directly and immediately curtailing any other freedom of that citizen guaranteed by the Constitution and which is not susceptible of abridgment on the same grounds as are set out in clause(6) of Article 19. Therefore, the right of freedom of speech cannot be taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the business activities of a citizen. Freedom of speech can be restricted only in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. It cannot, like the freedom to carry on business, be curtailed in the interest of the general public..." The Supreme Court further held that: ".. It cannot, like the freedom to carry on business, be curtailed in the interest of the general public..." The Supreme Court further held that: ".. the press being a business and to the restriction imposed by the impugned Act being referable or justified as a proper restriction on the right to carry on the business of publishing of newspaper would be wholly irrelevant for considering whether the impugned Act infringes or does not infringe the freedom guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a)." Ultimately, in the said decision the Supreme Court held that since the order made under the Act operated as a restrained on the freedom of speech and expression of newspapers the mere fact that its object was to suppress unfair practice by newspapers would not validate them. 17. In Baonet Coleman and Co. Ltd.(supra) the Supreme Court held thus: "...The values vought by society in protecting the right to the freedom of speech would fall into four broad categories. Free expression is necessary (1) for individual fulfillment, (2) for attainment of truth, (3) for partici­pation by members of the society in political or social decision making, and (4) for maintaining the balance between stability and change in society. In the traditional theory, freedom of expression is not only an individual good, but a social good. It is the best process for advancing knowledge and discovering truth. The theory contemplates more than a process of individual judgment. It asserts that the process is also the best method to reach a general or social judgment .. In a democracy the basic premise is that the people are both the governors and the governed. It is the best process for advancing knowledge and discovering truth. The theory contemplates more than a process of individual judgment. It asserts that the process is also the best method to reach a general or social judgment .. In a democracy the basic premise is that the people are both the governors and the governed. In order that governed may form intelligent and wise judgment it is necessary that they must be appraised of all the aspects of a question on which a decision has to be taken so that they might arrive at the truth." The Supreme Court quoted a passage from a decision in Abram vs. United States (1918) 250 US 616, where Justice Holmes observed thus: "...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundati­ons of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out..." 18. Again in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd (supra) the Supreme Court observed that freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The press has been assumed the role of the public educator. The purpose of the press was to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate would not make responsible judgments. The authors of the articles published in newspapers have to be critical of the actions of Government in order to expose its weaknesses. Such articles tend to become an irritant or even a threat to power. Governments naturally take recourse to suppress newspapers publishing such articles. Just to get rid of these types of criticism laws are enacted. Enactment of laws providing for pre-censorship, seizures, interference with the transit of newspapers and demanding security deposit, imposition of restriction on the price of newspapers, on the number of pages of newspapers and the area that can be devoted for advertisements, withholding of Govern­ment advertisements, increase of postal rates, imposition of taxes on newsprint, canalisation of import of newsprint with the object of making it unjustly costlier etc. are some of the ways and means the Government may try to interfere with the freedom of press. The Supreme Court further observed that newspaper industry enjoys two of the fundamental rights, namely; the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and the freedom to engage in any profession, occupation, trade, industry or business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g). First, it is concerned with the field of expression and communication; secondly, communication has become an occupation or profession and because there is an invasion or threat, business and industry into the field where the freedom of expression is being exercised. While there can be no tax on the right to exercise freedom of expression, tax is leviable on profession, occupation, trade, business and industry. Hence tax is leviable on newspapers as an industry. When such tax transgresses into the field of freedom of expression and stifles that freedom it becomes unconsti­tutional. Imposition of such tax is permissible for carrying out a trade or a profession, but it should not be an overburden on newspapers as by such imposition of tax may lead curtailment of freedom of speech and expression. The delicate task of determining when it crosses from the area of profession, occupation, trade, business or industry into the area of freedom of expression and interferes with that freedom, is entrusted with the Court. On the other hand, it is the duty of the Court to find out whether the Government action transgress into the area of freedom of speech and expression. In this case, the Supreme Court considered the cases of Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. (supra) and Bennet Coleman & Co. (supra). After considering both these cases the Supreme Court observed that in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd case the Court was concerned with the price page policy and in Bannet Coleman & Co (supra) the news print policy imposed by the Government. (supra). After considering both these cases the Supreme Court observed that in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd case the Court was concerned with the price page policy and in Bannet Coleman & Co (supra) the news print policy imposed by the Government. The Court further held that levying tax on a newspaper industry is that it should not be an overburden on newspapers which constitute the Fourth Estate of the country." According to the Supreme Court a wise administrator should realise that the imposition of a tax like the customs duty on newsprint is an imposition of knowledge and would virtually amount to a burden imposed on a man for being literate and for being conscious of his duty as a citizen to inform himself about the world around him. 18. The Supreme Court quoted a passage from the decision in Attorney General vs. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1973) All EK 54 with approval, which runs thus : "The public interest in freedom of discussion (of which the freedom of the press is one aspect) stems from the requirement that members of a democratic society should be sufficiently informed that they may influence intelligently the decisions which may affect themselves." The Supreme Court further observed : "freedom of expression has four broad social purposes to serve,(i) it helps an individual to attain self fulfillment, (ii) it assists in the discovery of truth, (iii) it strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making, and (iv) it provides a mech­anism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change." In this case the Supreme Court held that a newspaper should not be hit on the financial aspect. If the Governmental .action does so it will be unconstitutional and violative of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. A newspaper by which the right of people to express their views is curtailed it is unconstitutional. If the Government imposes heavy financial burden or withdraws financial assistance which the paper may not be able to bear the burden and ultimately unable to continue. The Supreme Court further observed thus : "While newspapers which are commercial enterprises expect to sustain themselves by sales and advertising, they are not always viable on this traditional oasis. Capital and profits from other media and from business in general are often injected into the newspaper industry. The Supreme Court further observed thus : "While newspapers which are commercial enterprises expect to sustain themselves by sales and advertising, they are not always viable on this traditional oasis. Capital and profits from other media and from business in general are often injected into the newspaper industry. In many cases, the financing, or at least the deficits are covered by Governments or political bodies. Assistance from the State has taken various forms, including tax concessions not enjoyed by other industries, reduced postal and telephone rates, guaranteed Government advertising and subsidies to the price of newsprint." Therefore, the paper thrives not only from the sale proceeds of the paper but also from the assistance received from the Government by way of receiving concessions in various forms and also on receipt of advertisement. If these are curtailed the newspaper will not be able to withstand the competition and in the long run it may die down. If such concessions and advertisements are withheld from the newspaper this will amount to a direct effect in the freedom of speech and expression. 19. In Dainik Sambad (supra) a Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with a similar point. This Court after discussing all the connected cases, including the cases referred to above, observed thus : "...The right to circulate refers to the matter to be circulated as well as the volume of circulation. To require a newspaper to reduce its space for advertisements would directly affect its circulation since it would be bound to raise its price. It would amount to unreasonable restriction upon the freedom of the press to subject it to laws which take away or abridge the freedom of expression or which would curtail circulation and thereby narrow the scope of dissemination of information or fetter its freedom to choose its means of exercising the right or would undermine its independence by driving it to seek Government aid. Similarly, to single out the press for la ing upon it excessive and prohibitive burdens which would restrict the circulation or result in seeking an alternative paper may amount to unreasonable restriction. If may also amount to unreasonable restriction to require the newspaper either to reduce the number of their pages or to raise their price, according to the schedule prescribed by the State, on some ground extraneous to Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. If may also amount to unreasonable restriction to require the newspaper either to reduce the number of their pages or to raise their price, according to the schedule prescribed by the State, on some ground extraneous to Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. Any measure directed towards the elimination of unfair competition amongst newspapers or to fix a maximum page level may amount to interference with the freedom of press as was held in Banoet Goleman (supra). The State may restrict commercial activities of newspaper, in tke public interest, in so far as that can be done without restricting the freedom of expression or circulation of a newspaper. The right to publish an advertisement cannot be said to be a part of freedom of expression, but, if a restraint on advertisement curtails circulation. it would offend Article 19 (1) (a)." 20. In a very recent decision in The Printers (Mysore) Ltd & another vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer & others reported in Judgments Today, 1994 (1), the Supreme Court observed that "freedom of press has always been a cherished right in all democratic countries. The newspapers not only purvey news but also ideas, opinions and ideologies besides much else. They are supposed to guard public interest by bringing to fore the misdeeds. failings and lapses of the Government and other bodies exercising governing power. Rightly therefore, it has been described as the Fourth Estate. The democratic creden­tials of a State is judged today by the extent of freedom the press enjoys in that State." However, that does not mean the press is immune either from taxati­on or from the general laws relating to industrial relations or from the State regulation of the conditions of service of its employees. Nor is it immune from the general law of the land including civil and criminal liability for libel and defamation. However, the restriction must be reasonable. The prohibition upon the imposition of any restriction directly relatable to the right to publish, to the right to disseminate information and to the circulation of newspapers. 21. In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. (supra) the question was whether the publishers of newspapers were entitled to the benefit of section 8 (3) (b) read with section 8 (1) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ? 21. In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. (supra) the question was whether the publishers of newspapers were entitled to the benefit of section 8 (3) (b) read with section 8 (1) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ? If they were so entitled, they could purchase the raw material required by them at the concessional rate of 4%, if not, they would be liable to pay tax @ 10%. The Supreme Court after discussing various decisions observed thus : "...If the contention of the Revenue is accepted, the newspapers would now become liable to pay tax 10% on non-declared goods as prescribed in section 8 (2). This would be the necessary consequence of Revenue's submission inasmuch as the newspapers would be deprived of the benefit of section 8 (3) (b). We do not think that such was the intention behind the amendment of definition of the expression 'goods' by the 1958 (Amendment) Act. Even apart from the opening words in section 2 referred to above, it is well settled that where the context does not permit or where it would lead to absurd mechanically applied." The Supreme Court held that section 8 (3) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 did not exclude newspapers. 22. From the ratio of the above decisions it is abundantly clear that the State cannot impose unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, be that by putting heavy burden on the paper by imposing taxes or by withholding advertisement or the facilities for concessional rate in tax and purchase of newsprints; because if it is done it will amount to put press­ure on the paper, particularly on its financial aspect, thereby either the paper will be forced to raise the price, which ultimately reduce the circulation and thereby compel them to close down the newspaper, or force it to seek Governmental assistance in order to thrive and thereby yield to the pressure of the Government. 23. Mr. Goswami submitted that giving advertisement is a kind of State largess and every citizen is entitled to get it and has a legitimate expectation for enjoyment of such largess. The Government while distributing State largess ( must not act arbitrarily and the Government and or its instrumentality is subject to public law limitation. 23. Mr. Goswami submitted that giving advertisement is a kind of State largess and every citizen is entitled to get it and has a legitimate expectation for enjoyment of such largess. The Government while distributing State largess ( must not act arbitrarily and the Government and or its instrumentality is subject to public law limitation. It is true that today the Government in a welfare State has wide powers in regulating and dispensing of special services like leases, licences, contracts or distribution of State largess. The magnitude and range of such Governmental function is great. The Government while entering into contracts or issuing quotas is not expected to act like a private individual but should act in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms. Such actions should not be arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. While dealing with these matters the Government is expected to do it in a fair manner. They should not act arbitrarily and their action must be justifiable on the basis of some policy or valid principles which by themselves are reasonable and not discriminatory. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979)3 SCC 489 the Supreme Court held thus : " .This proposition would hold good in all case of dealing by the Government with the public, where the interest sought to be protected is a privilege. It must therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual deal with any person it pleases but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts, quotas licences etc. must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norms and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unrea­sonable or discriminatory." 24. This principle is again reiterated in Mis Kasturi Lai Lakshmi Reddy vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir (1980) 4 SCC 1 . The Supreme Court in this decision observed thus : "...Though ordinarily a private individual would be guided by econo­mic considerations of self gain in any action taken by him, it is always open to him under the law to act contrary to his self interest or to oblige another in entering into a contract or dealing with his property. But the Government is not free to act as it likes in granting largess such as awarding a contract or selling or leasing out its property. Whatever be its activity, the Government is still the Government and is, subject to restraints inherent in its position in a democratic society. The constitu­tional power conferred on the Government cannot be exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner; it has to be exercised for the public good. Every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it must therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest; the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated. If the Government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other largess, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid." Coming to the present case in hand, I find that the petitioners have specifically stated that their paper 'Sentinel', has wide circulation of 42,000 copies, so as per Governments own norms it has to be regarded as a big paper. The petitioners have further stated that their paper 'the Sentinel' Is at least at par with other daily, namely, 'The Assam Tribune' if not more. That being the position, there was no justifiable ground or reason to deprive the paper in getting the due quota of advertisement. As stated in the petition, in 1992 the quota of advertisements was more or less at par with 'the Assam Tribune' but in the subsequent years it has been drastically reduced and figures have been quoted in the petition. As stated in the petition, in 1992 the quota of advertisements was more or less at par with 'the Assam Tribune' but in the subsequent years it has been drastically reduced and figures have been quoted in the petition. On perusal of the figures it really appears that allotment of advertisements to petitioners' paper 'The Sentinel' bus been reduced, on the other hand, papers having less circulations like, 'North East Times', 'Assam Express' are being given much more quantity of advertisements. The Government, as stated above, has not controverted the averments made in the petition though the Civil Rule was admitted on 9.7.93 making it returnable by two months. Besides, the case remained part heard for a considerable period, however no effort was made by the Govern­ment to controvert the averments made in the petition. To my utter surprise, the Government did not care to produce the case records. At the time of hearing of the Civil Rule, the learned Government Advocate expressed his inability to produce the record as the record was not received by him. He could not answer why the Government failed to file counter affidavit or to produce case records as ordered by this Court on 9.7.93, nor any prayer was made for further extension of time. This being the position the averments made in the petition should be deemed to be admitted by the Government. 26. I do not find any reason why the records have been withheld. The averments made by the petitioners that curtailment of advertisement was for an oblique purposes to put unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The petitioners have also suggested that they might have incurred displeasure of the authorities by publishing articles, news3public scandals, criticism involving Government Department, through investigative journalism and for revealing various irregularities in a fearless manner. In the absence of any counter affidavit and failure to produce record, as held in Naseem Baao (supra) I am constrained to bold that all the averments made in the writ petition have been admitted by the respondents. In view of the above, I am inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression by refusing to grant adequate number of advertisements. In view of the above, I am inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression by refusing to grant adequate number of advertisements. Besides the grant of ad­vertisements is a kind of State largess and the State, no doubt is the authority to grant such largess has no unfettered right to give advertisements accor­ding to its own sweet will. This action of the Government must be informed of reasons. From the facts and circumstances, as urged by Mr. Goswami, I am constrained to hold that the action of the Government is not reasonable. 27. Thus, on an overall consideration of the various aspects of the matter discussed above, I accept the submissions of Mr. Goswami and dispose of the petition with a direction to the respondents to give/allot advertisements to the petitioners newspaper 'The Sentinel' adequately at par with that of similar newspapers, viz, 'The Assam Tribune'. It is further direc­ted that the respondents shall also give sufficient quantity of advertisements, which the paper was entitled to as per its own status for the period from January to June 1993, which had been denied to the petitioners' said news­paper. This must be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from today. I make no order as to costs.