M. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter arises out of an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying issuance of some rules of mandamus or of any order of that kind against the Government of Sikkim. ( 2 ) THE fact of the case is very short. The petitioner started a tannery styled as Sikkim Tannery, having its factory and business centre within East District of Sikkim. For setting up of the factory he spent pretty good amount for installation of some machineries and employed about forty persons to run the show. It was started sometime in 1970 when Sikkim was under royal administration. ( 3 ) THE then Ruler with an idea of encouraging establishment of some kind of industry within the State and also with a view to utilise the hides and skins of the animals, permitted the petitioner to purchase the hides and skins of the butchered animals from all corners of Sikkim. He was, however, to pay some amount towards procurement of such hides and skins. ( 4 ) THE business, according to above procedure, continued for a few years even after Sikkim became a State. In early 1974 the contract between the petitioner and the Govenrment was terminated mainly on the plea that there was huge arrears on the part of the petitioner towards payment of Government dues. Petitioner took the plea that the hides and skins available from the Defence establishment within Sikkim were stopped from being sold to the petitioner as the Defence appointed their own agency for the purpose. Hence the extent of procurement of hides and skins by the petitioner fell down to a great extent and that resulted in default in making payment of the Government dues. ( 5 ) THE Government, however, entered into fresh contract from 1974 and this time the total amount of fees were drastically reduced because the skins available item Defence side were not available to the petitioner as the Defence was allowed to make separate arrangement for thehides and skins stocked at their end. The new contract was also made in favour of the petitioner's tannery in a different name. Again there was default and after 1981 the new contract was also brought to an end. The new contract was also made in favour of the petitioner's tannery in a different name. Again there was default and after 1981 the new contract was also brought to an end. ( 6 ) THE petitioner made several demands and ultimately filed this writ petition when even the notice demanding justice for and on behalf of the plaintiff failed to yield any result. ( 7 ) THE prayer of the petitioner in his writ petition is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to sell the entire available stock of hides and skins by public auction on cancellation of the existing contract given to some parties by the Government. The other prayer is also for issuance of writ of mandamus asking the Government to supply hides and skins to the tanneries in Sikkim at reasonable rates. Further praye is for issuance of mandamus prohibiting export of any amount of hides and skins from the State of Sikkim. ( 8 ) THE State of Sikkim, represented by the Secretary of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department, has been contesting the writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The contention of the State is that the petitioner never showed bona fide in his dealings with the Government. His default in clearing off huge amount of money resulted in termination of the contract at least on two occasions. The State further contends that unless arrear dues are paid off, the Government cannot enter into any further contract with the petitioner. The State has also challenged the maintainability of the writ application itself on the ground that whatever prayer the petitioner has made are beyond the power of any Court exercising writ jurisdiction. ( 9 ) THE points raised by both the parties may be taken up one after another. Before entering into the actual points of debate we should note that the petitioner is engaged in running the tannery from the time of the ex-Ruler of this place. After Sikkim got the Statehood in 1975, several legislations were made which included the Sikkim (Livestock and Livestock Product Control) Act, 1985. It governs various matters relating to livestock and livestock products within this State. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner made default in making payment of Government dues for a number of years. The principal amount due for the years from 1970 to 1974 is around 2. 5 lakhs of rupees. It governs various matters relating to livestock and livestock products within this State. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner made default in making payment of Government dues for a number of years. The principal amount due for the years from 1970 to 1974 is around 2. 5 lakhs of rupees. There is variation of very negligible amount in accounts placed by the petitioner and those by the State. The State has again charged the principal amount with interest and that has brought the figure to about 9. 26 lakhs. Petitioner's first objection is towards the imposition of penalty in the form of interest. Moreover, he claims that the default was not deliberately made by him and that the same was because of Government's inaction over arrangement for supply of hides and skins to the petitioner by the local defence authorities. Petitioner contends that simply the amount as suggested by him should be levied upon him and he should be given opportunity to make payment by instalments. Though the State objects to the plea of the petitioner to have exemption from payment of any interest on the amount due, agree to the proposal for payment of the arrears by sensible numbers of instalments. While the State points out to the interest clause in the contract agreement, the petitioner takes the plea of the claim being barred by limitation. ( 11 ) IT is, hence, the admitted position that substantial amount is due to the respondent and the petitioner is liable to pay the same. But the main problem is in the matter of assessment of the actual dues. I am afraid this Court cannot play the role of adjudicator so far as quantum of dues is concerned. For the same the petitioner will have to take recourse in a Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction or should enter into a negotiation with the respondent for amicably settling the quantum of claim and mode of payment. ( 12 ) IN this context it would be worth mentioning that the petitioner admittedly a defaulter, cannot claim any favourable order in this proceeding till the matter of settling the arrear claims of money is finalised. We do not mean payment of all his dues, but the petitioner must come down to agreed terms for settlement of the claims and counter-claims. We do not mean payment of all his dues, but the petitioner must come down to agreed terms for settlement of the claims and counter-claims. Till that is done no order or condition which might be passed or imposed by this Court in this writ proceeding would be available to him. 'there is no equity in favour of a defaulting party which may justify interference by the Court in exercise of its equitable, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' is the Observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Rerolling Mills, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 647 : (AIR 1994 SC 2151 ). ( 13 ) WE have already mentioned that the petitioner wants a mandate from this Court in the form of writ of mandamus directing the State to legislate in proper manner to change the prevailing system of purchase and sale of hides and skins and also for complete stoppage of exports of hides and skins from the State of Sikkim and forproviding measures for regular supply of hides and skins of tanneries in Sikkim at reasonable rates. Our attention has been drawn to the aims and objects behind the Sikkim (Livestock and Livestock Products Control) Act, 1985 which reads 'to maintain regular and continuous supply of hides and skins for development of leather and allied industries in the State of Sikkim. ' ( 14 ) LEARNED Advocate General representing the State, however, contends that there are various provisions of the Act which are in consonance of the abovenoted aims and objects behind the legislation. Nothing more is required to be done. The State has also objected the idea of approaching the Court for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the State to legislate on a particular point or in a particular manner. Several decisions of the Supreme Court have been referred to in this context. State of Jammu and Kashmir v. A. K. Zakki was reported in AIR 1992 SC 1546 (Para 10), D. C. Bhatia v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 104 : (1994 AIR SCW 5011) and A. K. Roy v. Union of India, reported in (1982) 1 SCC 270 : (AIR 1982 SC 710) (at paras 49 to 51 ). From these decisions it becomes clear that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to make a particular legislation. From these decisions it becomes clear that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to make a particular legislation. Be it an Act or a Rule, which is also a subordinate legislation, are all matters of legislative policy which remains beyond the domain of any Court specially when it exercises writ jurisdiction. Thus we cannot entertain the prayer made by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus on the State to legislate in a particular manner. ( 15 ) A look to the Sikkim (Livestock and Livestock Product Control) Act indicates that adequate provisions have been made in the Act keeping in view the object of regular and continuous supply of hides and skins for the development of leather and allied industries in the State. Section 8 gives the power to the State for restricting or regulating export of hides and skins outside the State of Sikkim. The State is, therefore, within its competence to control and limit the export of skins keeping in view the need of such hides and skins for the local tanneries or allied industries. Though there is no specific Section empowering the State to fix the price for hides and skins like the provision of Section 10 which relates to fixation of maximum retail price for meat, the State has the authority under Section 3 of the Act to take steps for arranging equitable distribution of livestock products and availability thereof at fair price. Thus we find that there are ample provisions under the Act to protect the interest of persons like the petitioner. Therefore, even if the writ Court had any jurisdiction to mandate on the State to legislate, in the instant case there remains no occasion for that. ( 16 ) THE petitioner referred to a few decisions reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618 : (AIR 1982 SC 879) (Randhir Singh's case), AIR 1984 SC 802 (Bandhua Mukti Morcha case) and AIR 1987 SC 537 (Comptroller and Auditor General v. K. S. Jagannathan), to contend that a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has power to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government has failed to exercise the discretion conferred upon it by a statute, rule or a policy of the Government. On this point the argument of the petitioner is quite acceptable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set down a proposition that a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well within its competence to pull up the Government and its authorities to perform in the manner as prescribed under any statute or policy of the Government. ( 17 ) IN the instant case we are yet to find any notification under which proper step has been taken for stalling cent-per-cent export of the hides and skins from the State of Sikkim, to regulate prices for sale of livestock products like hides and skins or ensuring sale of the hides and skins to the recognised local tanneries. ( 18 ) TO sum up the above propositions it is directed that the respondent-State should immediately take necessary steps to ensure regular and continuous supply of hides and skins at reasonable price for leather and allied industries in the State of Sikkim and for that purpose appropriate Notifications under Sections 3, 8 and other provisions of the Act must be issued forthwith. It is observed further that the petitioner would be entitled to any benefit under the Act only after finalisation of the total amount due from him to the State and the mode of payment of the same. ( 19 ) WITH these observations the writ petition is disposed of without any costs. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .