( 1 ) THE petitioner who is Gram Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Padari Khurd, District, Maharajganj, has come up with a prayer to quash the various orders passed by the Government as contained in Annexures 3 to 6 of the writ petition abolishing the Seed Store and Purchase Centres in rural areas. ( 2 ) A perusal of the various orders passed by the Government shows that the Government had given various reasons for adopting such a policy decision though in some cases it has not altogether abolished those centres. ( 3 ) SRI S. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, contended that the policy decision of the Government is discriminatory inasmuch as such centres have been allowed to remain in Hill areas and Bundelkhand Region and thus it is violative of Articles 14, 39 (a), 40 and 48 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Singh also contended that since no counter has been filed, the relief claimed for, be granted. ( 4 ) SRI P. K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand, contended that the policy of the Government is not discriminatory while allowing continuance of such centres in the Hill region and the Bundelkhand region which is as well known to be a hilly region. In fact the petitioner has no where come up with a claim that the Hill areas and Bundelkhand region where such centres have been allowed to continue, and other places where they have been abolished, are all geographically, socially, culturally or even agriculturewise similarly situated. Accordingly, there is no force in the contention of Mr. Singh. It has also not been stated precisely as to how the various reasons given by the Government giving up its earlier policy decision is vitiated on account of applicability of Articles 14, 39 (a), 40 and 48 of the Constitution of India. He also demonstrated the ceiling area under the Law Reforms Laws are on the higher side in these areas than that of other area. ( 5 ) HAVING gone through the writ petition and heard learned counsel for the parties we find substance in the contentions of Mr. Bisaria and accept them. ( 6 ) WE all know that our State Legislature has decided to create a separate State of Uttrakhand in regard to all Hill areas. ( 5 ) HAVING gone through the writ petition and heard learned counsel for the parties we find substance in the contentions of Mr. Bisaria and accept them. ( 6 ) WE all know that our State Legislature has decided to create a separate State of Uttrakhand in regard to all Hill areas. We also all know that the Legislature while enacting Land Reforms Laws for the Bundelkhand Region, has prescribed a higher ceiling limit, i. e. to say of 45. 00 acres per person/individual whereas in other areas the ceiling area is undisputedly lesser between 18. 00 to 27. 00 acres. These apparent aspects could not be shown to be incorrect during his submissions by Mr. Singh. We are not impressed by the bald argument of Mr. Singh that this Policy decision is violative of Articles 14, 39 (a), 40 and 48 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) WE, accordingly, are of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed, but without there being any order as to cost. ( 8 ) THE office is directed to hand over a copy of this order within one week to Sri Bisaria, the learned Standing Counsel for its communication to the Government. .