ORDER A.R. Tiwari, J. -- 1. Acting pro bona publico, the petitioner, resident of urban area, has taken up the cudgels for farmers, mostly residents of rural area to protest against the inadequate, as alleged "support price" of food grains like wheat, rice, and other produce and to protect their interests. 2. In M.P. No. 629/90 the petitioner has claimed the under-noted reliefs: (a) That support price presently fixed for Madhya Pradesh be kindly set aside and quashed, directing the respondents to refix the price in the manner as price of sugar is fixed or preferably said price be kindly fixed and declared by this Hon'ble Court itself upon hearing the parties. (b) That support price even for northern states be also set aside and quashed directing the Respondents to refix the same also upon the basis stated above. (c) That respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to put to an end the sale being openly done outside Mandi areas, so that each sale and purchase is duly recorded. (d) That issue price may be directed to be fixed as deemed just by this Hon'ble Court and costs and such other reliefs as deemed fit may also be granted giving such directions to the Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as deemed fit. 3. Despite absence of the petitioner in both these petitions, presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we heard the counsel for the Respondents to notice the grievance as projected in twin petitions on its own merit in public interest and to speak where silence is not gold. 4. The thrust of the petitioner is that fixation of 'support price' of food grains is illogical and illegal in that factors like cost of seeds, fertilizers and cultivation is taken into account but the cost of the land and maintenance is omitted which makes the prices unrealistic and discriminatory when compared to other activities and price of sugar. The petitioner, thus, seeks the direction to Respondents to take into account the 'cost of land' also while fixing the price of produce from such land. 5. Respondents have not cared to file the returns despite several opportunities for that purpose. In one case, five years and in another case, two years have rolled by. Yet there is no written rebuttal to the issue on hand. 6. 5. Respondents have not cared to file the returns despite several opportunities for that purpose. In one case, five years and in another case, two years have rolled by. Yet there is no written rebuttal to the issue on hand. 6. But via oral arguments, the respondents have opposed the reliefs on two counts. One: Farmers hold the land for agricultural operations with limited rights and ownership of land as such vests in the State. Two Price fixation is a policy matter which needs to be left to the wisdom of concerning authorities i.e. Executive. 7. The contentions, offered in opugnation, are little queer in that farmers are known as 'Swamis' of the 'Bhumi' (land) and in that capacity have legal rights of transfer or mortgage of their land. The petition contains loud echo that procurer of land on sale invests money i.e. capital and he should be able to receive proper return of his capital through the produce and that this is possible only when 'cost' of land and maintenance is not omitted from consideration. As to the second contention, it is trite law that public policy is intended to be just and fair and attack on the basis of unjustness or unfairness is not avoidable adroitly under that umbrella of policy matter. 8. Respondents are not able to show as to why cost of land and its proper upkeep are not the relevant factors in fixation of price of agricultural produce and as to how cost of production alone can reflect the realities? 9. Law is not in tenebrosity. The Court is concerned only about rational basis. In AIR 1990 SC 1277 (M/s Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others) it is held that -- "Price fixation is not within the province of the Courts, Judicial function in respect of such matters is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis for the conclusions reached by the concerned authority." (Emphasis supplied) -x- -x- -x- -x- -x- -x 10. The crucial question is that the respondents have not bothered to place on record data and material to satisfy us about the rationality. True it is that the Court does not supplant the 'feel of the expert' by its own views but does have the power to step in to undo the wrong if any done to those who merited better treatment. True it is that the Court does not supplant the 'feel of the expert' by its own views but does have the power to step in to undo the wrong if any done to those who merited better treatment. It is ruled in AIR 1990SC 1851 (The Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. The Association of Natural Gas Consuming Industries that for essential commodities "cost plus" basis is recognised basis for price fixation. The question, nodus free is as to what is meant by "cost"? 11. Eight and forty years of independence are over. Yet our country has only 1.5 per cent of the world's income, though it has 15 per cent of world's population. Soon we shall usher in 21st Century but are still the 21st poorest nation on earth. Each section of the nation must get its proper due. As inscription on the wall of Harvard Law School Library, taken from Justinian's Institutes, tells us that one of the percepts of the law is "to render each his due." It is stated that farmers who are many but poor, are not getting their due. The petitioners are patterned on the caution given by Clement Atlee that "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich". The essence is that promises are to be kept. The petitioner, thus, seem to suggest that present policy does little credit even to the philosophy of Late Prime Minister Shri Shastri who elegantly exhorted the nation with his notion of "Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan" and that the Kisan by far the neglected lot, is not being uplifted equitably and is not being accorded the place, in the scheme of things, which he deserves and is entitled to have on the doctrine of 'equal protection' in terms of Article 14 of our Constitution. Agrestic base is not to suffer amaurosis, Concept has to be commodious. 12. The gist of the grievance is that the expression like "cost" would naturally mean assessment of cost of land as well, generally to know its capital value on category basis and of interest or profit obtainable on it on investment in other venture, so as to include this element also along with cost of cultivation, depending on several factors like seed etc in matter of fixation of price. It is gathered from the petitions that produce is linked with land and as such, consideration of cost of both (Produce and land) should then properly constitute the rational basis. Law luculently, not limpingly, indicates that activity of price fixation should ultimately belong to the authority other than Courts. 'Judicial review' is limited to scrutiny of rational basis. Nothing more, nothing less. But unaided by definite data and information about proper picture of fiscal policy and overall impact one way or the other, we would like this matter to be handled by the Respondents in just manner. 13. Accordingly, in the absence of adequate material and proper data, we refrain from adjudicating the question about illogicality and irrationality and from issuing directions as claimed. But it is apt to bear in mind that the word 'support' means to sustain, nourish, endure, maintain, etc. 14. In the circumstances we appreciate the anxiety and efforts of the petitioner and deem it proper to dispose of both the petitions with directions as under :- (i) Respondent No.1 shall, within two months from today, constitute the committee, comprised of experts of the subject to reflect and report to it whether or not the cost of land and maintenance are relevant factors and further as to what particular factors would yield 'rational basis' in fair determination of support price of agricultural produce, within the time limit to be fixed by it. (ii) Respondent shall then consider the report and conclude for future period about the level of price, which can appropriately be termed as 'support price' free from taint of discrimination and vice of arbitrariness, in conformity with law as early as possible. 15. These petitions are accordingly disposed of in terms as indicated above with no orders as to costs. 16. Place this order in M.P. No. 629/90 and its copy in M.P. No. 191/93.