D. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) ). THE petitioner is manufacturer of Sodium Cyanide and Potassium Cyanide as well as other chemicals and it carries on its manufacturing activities since 1982 at its factory located at GIDC Industrial Estate, Olpad, District Surat. One of the principle raw material for its manufacturing process is natural gas; the natural gas is supplied by ONGC and the same is used as feedstock by the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner originally planned to commence manufacture in 1975. For the purpose of obtaining feed stock the petitioner entered into a contract with ONGC for supply of 22,5000 cu. mt. of natural gas per day. However, due to circumstances beyond its control the petitioner was not able to put up its factory for a long time and the agreement entered into with ONGC lapsed. Subsequently on 12/3/1980 another agreement was entered into with ONGC for supply of 12000 cu. mt. of industrial gas per day. The factory commenced production sometime in October/december,1982. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was contemplating expansion of its factory and accordingly was in need of additional quantity of natural gas. The petitioner therefore, approached ONGC seeking additional supply of 2000 cu. mt. natural gas per day and the said demand was accepted by the ONGC and the supply of additional gas was started from September, 1986. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, ONGC stopped supply of additional gas from 1/3/1987 forcing the petitioner to file a writ petition in this Court being SCA No. 1421 of 1987. The petitioner made a prayer to the effect that ONGC be directed to supply 4000 cu. mt. of natural gas per day and by interim order dated 14/7/1987 the learned Single Judge granted prayer of the petitioner. Against this interim order the respondent - ONGC filed Letters Patent Appeal and the Division Bench confirmed the interim order in part, directing the ONGC to supply additional quantity of natural gas of 1000 cu. mt. per day. Thereafter, as ONGC agreed to continue supply of this additional quantity of natural gas on 8/1/1992, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition filed in 1987. In the meantime as the marketing of natural gas was taken over by Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) the petitioner entered into an agreement on 29/5/1993 for supply of 13000 cu. mt. per day for a period commencing from 1/1/1993 to 31/12/1995. In the meantime as the marketing of natural gas was taken over by Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) the petitioner entered into an agreement on 29/5/1993 for supply of 13000 cu. mt. per day for a period commencing from 1/1/1993 to 31/12/1995. Supplemental agreement was executed on 16/6/1994 whereby GAIL agreed to supply additional quantity of 2000 cu. mt. per day. Thus, from June 1994 the petitioner was being supplied 15000 cu. mt. natural gas per day and the said supply continues till date without interruption. ( 5 ) IN July 1996 the petitioner once again prayed for supply of additional quantity of 3000 cu. mt. of natural gas per day in light of the expansion of factory which the petitioner was undertaking. The petitioner kept on reminding the respondent as well as GAIL from time to time and the last such reminder was dated 30/11/1998. At that point of time GAIL informed the petitioner that there was no supply of additional gas available from Olpad well. As a result letter of intent issued for the purpose of expansion to the petitioner expired and the additional plant could not be set up by the petitioner as no gas was made available. ( 6 ) THE petitioner continued to approach the officers of respondent Corporation trying to impress upon them the bonafide requirement of the petitioner for additional supply of natural gas which was used by the petitioner as feed stock in its manufacturing process. The petitioner explained to the officer of respondent Corporation that the natural gas was used by the petitioner as raw material for production of the chemicals and it was not possible to substitute as raw material any other item as in contrast with the use of the natural gas as fuel which could be substituted by any other fuel like furnace oil etc. The petitioner further submitted before the respondent Corporation that it was at the behest of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner setup its factory and commenced the production of chemicals from 1982 onwards, as the petitioner had been induced to put up the plant at Olpad because the petitioner was assured of sufficient supply of gas from Olpad wells. The petitioner further submitted before the respondent Corporation that it was at the behest of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner setup its factory and commenced the production of chemicals from 1982 onwards, as the petitioner had been induced to put up the plant at Olpad because the petitioner was assured of sufficient supply of gas from Olpad wells. ( 7 ) ON 4/2/2000 an advertisement appeared in the Ahmedabad Editions of times of India and indian Express whereby the respondent invited tenders from interested prospective consumers of natural gas which was available at several installations mentioned in the said advertisement. In the said advertisement, at item no. 3 the installation mentioned was GGS-Olpad and the quantity of gas available was mentioned as 8000 cu. mt per day. It is very pertinent to note that out of the seven installations mentioned in the advertisement only in relation to item no. 3 viz. Olpad-GGS a note as clause "a" to the following effect was mentioned. "a)* offers from companies/plants located within 2 km. from Olpad GGS shall not be considered for allocation for safety reasons as this area falls under Mining lease. " ( 8 ) THE petitioner was interested in availing additional supply of natural gas. It approached the respondent and pointed out to the officials that such a restrictive clause should not have been placed in advertisement inviting the tenders because the petitioner was the only consumer of natural gas in Olpad area since 1982 and moreover the factory of the petitioner was the only factory falling within specified area preventing the petitioner from applying for the tender form. The officials of the respondent Corporation thereupon permitted the petitioner to collect the tender form and informed the petitioner that it would be open for the petitioner to apply in response to invitation to tender and such application shall be considered on merits. Accordingly on 18/2/2000 the petitioner filed an application duly accompanied by the requisite certificate with other details as were necessary. The application of the petitioner was for additional supply of 8000 cu. mt. natural gas per day to be utilised as raw material for manufacturing the products of the petitioner. Accordingly on 18/2/2000 the petitioner filed an application duly accompanied by the requisite certificate with other details as were necessary. The application of the petitioner was for additional supply of 8000 cu. mt. natural gas per day to be utilised as raw material for manufacturing the products of the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE petitioner did not hear anything from the respondent in response to the application made and hence by letter dated 24/3/2000 the petitioner once again reminded the respondent to allot the additional gas to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had come to know that there were some other applicants also and that such applicants were seeking supply of gas to be used as a fuel. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner is apprehending that the application tendered by the petitioner on 18/2/2000 would not be considered by the respondent on a technical ground and for that the petitioner has approached this Honble Court seeking following relief :"29 (A) The Honble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ direction or order under art 226 of the Constitution of India quashing Note a mentioned in the notice inviting offers from gas installation and excluding companies located within 2 kms. from Olpad GEB who are not to be considered for allocation and that the petitioners tender be considered for allocation of additional gas and, the same be allotted to the petitioner;" ( 10 ) IN the petition, the petitioner has by way of additional facts stated that sometime in 1995 one of the capped gas wells of the respondent which was located some distance near plant of the petitioner had erupted and according to the respondent it resulted in damage to the surrounding area. The petitioners say is that a pond for storing water which was dug by the petitioner within its own premises was also damaged and as the respondent corporation had stopped supply of gas the petitioner was also forced to close down the plant for 19 days which resulted in huge loss to the petitioner. ( 11 ) THE petitioner has further stated that in 1981 some gas eruption had been noticed from such capped well and the petitioner had informed the respondent vide letter dated 28/8/1981. ( 11 ) THE petitioner has further stated that in 1981 some gas eruption had been noticed from such capped well and the petitioner had informed the respondent vide letter dated 28/8/1981. That the respondent corporation had replied by letter dated 2/11/1981 that there was no cause for worry and the Corporation had taken steps to ensure safety of the surrounding area. ( 12 ) IT further transpires that the respondent corporation filed a Civil Suit in Surat Court against the petitioner claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 9,31,00,000. 00 as well as interest at the rate of 24%. A further prayer is also made in the suit to the effect that the Court " may be pleased to decree shifting of defendants factory and reservoir to another place outside the gas field area. . . ". The petitioner has filed a counter claim against respondent claiming damages by way of loss of production and damage to plant etc. The said proceedings are pending and according to the petitioner though these facts are not strictly relevant to the issue involved in the petition the same are placed on record to apprise the Court of entire backdrop of circumstances. ( 13 ) ON 13/4/2000 Rule was issued by this Court after hearing the Advocate for the petitioner and notice as to interim relief was made returnable. Thereafter, on hearing both the sides on 3/5/2000 the following order was passed by this Court :"put up on 12/6/2000. In the meanwhile the process of finalisation of the tenders may go on and in case any final decision is taken, the same shall be subject to further orders by this Court to be passed on 12/6/2000. "contentions. ( 14 ) THE petitioners contentions are that the clause by way of note (a) in the advertisement inviting tender has been inserted only with a view to exclude the petitioner from applying for additional supply of gas as the distance of 2 kms. mentioned in the said clause is applicable only to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is the only consumer of natural gas from Olpad installation. That the natural gas supplied from Olpad installation contains 95% methane which is best suited as feed stock for the petitioners manufacture of chemicals. mentioned in the said clause is applicable only to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is the only consumer of natural gas from Olpad installation. That the natural gas supplied from Olpad installation contains 95% methane which is best suited as feed stock for the petitioners manufacture of chemicals. That in the past whenever the petitioner had approached the respondent Corporation or GAIL for additional supply of gas the petitioner had been informed that no additional supply was available from Olpad installation and now that when additional supply of natural gas from Olpad installation is available the petitioner is sought to be excluded by the restrictive clause placed in the advertisement dated 4/2/2000. The petitioners case is therefore that note in the said advertisement is incorporated with ulterior motive to discriminate against the petitioner and to favour other applicants who are applying for the first time to use the gas as fuel and not as feed stock. ( 15 ) THE basic case of the respondent is that Olpad installation is situated in mining zone/mining lease located in and around Olpad taluka. In light of this it is averred in para 4. 2 of affidavit-in-reply dated 25/4/2000 as follows :"4. 2. I humbly submit that any construction, factory or other buildings which are within mining zone and/or in the area closely surrounding mining zone, are danger to themselves or danger to all surrounding and nearby areas since leakage of gas due to any negligence or error committed by anybody, can cause havoc to the public at large. Any minor mistake/negligence done by any inhabitant/occupant of that place or in the said zone or surrounding area, can cause tragedy which can be worse than that of Bhopal Gas Tragedy. In case any explosion takes place within the mining area, it is likely to affect companies/plants/buildings or any other property or lives within a distance/circumstance of few K. Ms. from the said mining zone, much more so, properties/lives located/residing within the mining zone". ( 16 ) THEREFORE relying upon the incident which had occurred in January,1995 namely, a blow out of capped well, the respondent contends that it was due to pond/reservior that the petitioner had constructed for storing the water was direct cause of such gas eruption. from the said mining zone, much more so, properties/lives located/residing within the mining zone". ( 16 ) THEREFORE relying upon the incident which had occurred in January,1995 namely, a blow out of capped well, the respondent contends that it was due to pond/reservior that the petitioner had constructed for storing the water was direct cause of such gas eruption. The respondent states that this incident of blow out is an example on the basis of which the respondent has "learnt lesson" and is therefore of the view that in the larger public interest it was advisable and necessary not to allot any gas to any industry situated within 2 kms. from Olpad GGS. That in light of such compelling requirement the respondent has been constrained to take policy decision not to allot any gas to any industry within the period of 2 kms. from Olpad GGS and it is in this backdrop that note has been inserted vide clause a in the advertisement issued in February,2000. It is therefore submitted by the respondent that as the respondent corporation had taken a policy decision the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in limine. ( 17 ) WE are aware that the scope of judicial review of an administrative decision is very limited. The judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. Such judicial review has to be tampered with judicial restraint. The restraint has two contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial intervention; the another covers the scope of the Courts ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action. Judicial review , as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. ( 18 ) TESTING the present petition and the decision making process of the respondent corporation at the aforesaid touchstone it is not possible to state that the decision making process is reasonable, not tainted with malafide or not for collateral consideration. Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. ( 18 ) TESTING the present petition and the decision making process of the respondent corporation at the aforesaid touchstone it is not possible to state that the decision making process is reasonable, not tainted with malafide or not for collateral consideration. We must hasten to add that the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the issues which involve commercial or technical prudence; but here is a case where the respondent corporation has taken upon itself to deny to petitioner even an opportunity to participate in the tender. Though apparently, even after the publication of restrictive clause in the advertisement the petitioner was permitted to apply, it is apparent that such permission was granted only with a view to ensure that the petitioner could not make grievance that it was not even permitted to make an application. This becomes apparent when one considers the averments as emanate from the three affidavits dated 25/4/2000, 8/3/2001 and 17/3/2001 filed on behalf of the respondent. ( 19 ) THE respondent has categorically stated on oath in all the three reply affidavits that it is because of the involvement of larger public interest that the restrictive clause has been inserted in the advertisement issued in February,2000 and in case of the petitioner it is the past incident which took place in 1995 that the policy decision has been taken not to allot any additional supply of gas to the petitioner. If that is the case, it is not necessary to permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process, and if that was not the case there are no reasons forthcoming why the petitioners application has been not dealt with. ( 20 ) IN the first affidavit in reply dated 25/04/2001 filed in para 5 it is stated as follows :"5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, I humbly submit that : (A) the subject petition is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained ; (B) all the applications received by the respondent corporation pursuant to the advertisement issued by it in February 2000 (at Annexure A/o,page 26 to the petition) are still under consideration and no final decision in respect of the said applications has yet been taken. I humbly submit that the applications have yet not been evaluated for allotment of gas and, therefore, presumption of the petitioner is premature and ill-founded. It is not true that the petitioners application has been rejected. As the offers are still under examination, there is no question of reaching to any final conclusion. Thus, the petition, in my humble submission, is premature. Therefore, I humbly submit that the subject petition is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained and the Honourable Court may be pleased to kindly reject the same at its threshold. (C) I humbly submit that the decision and action of the respondent corporation as stipulated in the said advertisement is purely a policy decision which has been taken by the respondent corporation in view of the peculiar requirements, facts, reasons and circumstances and also in light of the incident which occurred in January, 1995. Therefore, the said purely policy decision of the respondent corporation is not only wholly justified, legal, proper and reasonable, but the same is also eminently and vitally necessary and inevitable. Thus, the said policy decision is not illegal or unjust or irrational or arbitrary or discriminatory, as alleged or otherwise. Since the subject petition relates to and involves a policy decision of the respondent corporation, taken in light of and on account of peculiar facts and circumstances, the same is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained. In addition to the aforesaid humble submission, I respectfully submit that the said decision of the respondent corporation, being purely a policy decision coupled with the fact that it has been taken in the backdrop of the facts, circumstances and reasons mentioned earlier, would be beyond the purview of judicial review. Therefore also, in my humble submission, the subject petition is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained and the Honourable Court may be pleased to kindly reject the same. (D) the subject petition is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained because the same is premature and at present, there is no cause of action. The subject petition is based on apprehension and presumption. Therefore, I humbly submit and pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to not to entertain the subject petition and reject the same at its threshold and in limine. " . The subject petition is based on apprehension and presumption. Therefore, I humbly submit and pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to not to entertain the subject petition and reject the same at its threshold and in limine. " . ( 21 ) THEREFORE, on the one hand the respondent states on oath that the applications, including the application made by the petitioner have yet not been evaluated, nor is the petitioners application rejected and hence, the petition is premature; while on the other hand in the same breath it is stated that restrictive clause stipulated in the advertisement of 4/2/2000 is purely a policy decision in view of the peculiar requirement, facts, reasons and circumstances and also in light of the incident which had occurred in January,1995. It is submitted in this context that the petition is therefore not maintainable and is beyond the purview of judicial review. In case the petition is not maintainable because of the policy decision taken by the respondent there is no question of then permitting the petitioner to make application, disregarding restrictive clause (a) embodied in the advertisement inviting tenders; and in case the petitioner is to be permitted to apply, as the petitioner has been actually permitted to do, then the respondent cannot take stand on the basis of policy decision and yet state that such application is pending and the petition is premature. In case the petition stands debarred because of the restrictive clause there is no question of permitting the petitioner to participate in the tender process and that having been permitted, it would not lie in the mouth of the respondent thereafter to state that the petition cannot be entertained because of the policy decision. ( 22 ) IT was only when the matter was heard substantially on 1/3/2001 that the Advocate for the petitioner made statement to the effect that the petition requires to be rejected as having become infructuous in view of the fact that allotment of gas had already been made sometime in January 2001. This statement also came to be made only when it was put to the learned Advocate for the respondent that if as stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioners application had not been rejected the Court may decline to go into the matter if the respondent corporation is inclined to consider the said application. This statement also came to be made only when it was put to the learned Advocate for the respondent that if as stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioners application had not been rejected the Court may decline to go into the matter if the respondent corporation is inclined to consider the said application. These facts are narrated only with a view to place on record the conduct of the respondent. Hence on 1/3/2001 the Advocate for the respondent sought time to place the fact of allotment on record by way of an affidavit and the matter was adjourned to 8/3/2001. On 8/3/2001 the affidavit was filed without the accompanying documents and the Court was constrained to adjourn the matter to 9/3/2001. Even on the said day i. e. 9/3/2001 as the documents were not forthcoming time was granted to the Advocate of the respondent and ultimately the matter was taken up for hearing on 16/3/2001. ( 23 ) IN the affidavit in reply dated 17/3/2001 the respondent has merely stated that it relies upon para 5 of affidavit in reply dated 25/2/2000 for the purpose of reiterating that it is purely a policy decision and such decision would be beyond the purview of judicial review. It is further reiterated that what is stated in para 4 of the said affidavit in reply will have to be taken into consideration and on the basis of the same the petition requires to be rejected. In the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply dated 17/3/2001 it is stated that the decision regarding allocation of additional gas from Olpad field has been taken by the Ministry and/or by the Committee constituted by the Ministry for the said purpose. However, the query which was put to the respondent as to how and in what circumstances the proposal was made to the Ministry for allocation of gas by the respondent when the petition was pending has remained unanswered. At one stage it was sought to be contended that as the allocation has been made by the Ministry and/or the Committee the respondent is nowhere involved in the decision making process. At one stage it was sought to be contended that as the allocation has been made by the Ministry and/or the Committee the respondent is nowhere involved in the decision making process. However, communication dated 28/7/2000 which has been placed on record along with the reply affidavit dated 17/3/2001 makes it abundantly clear that it is the respondent who had forwarded proposal to the Ministry and now it cannot be contended that the respondent is in no way involved in the decision making process. ( 24 ) ANOTHER facet of the controversy which may be emphasised : of the respondent, on the fact of blow out having occurred in 1985, treating the same as a basis for arriving at policy decision. To ascertain whether this decision making process was not tainted with arbitrariness or malafides it is necessary to take into consideration certain further facts which are available on record. As already noted the petitioner has specifically stated on oath in the petition that in 1981 there was a case of eruption from capped well which was brought to the notice of respondent by petitioners letter dated 28/8/1981 and that the respondent had specifically replied by letter dated 2/11/1981 that there was no cause for worry. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 17/7/2000 the petitioner has specifically stated that the reservoir for storing water had been in existence right since inception viz. 1982 and the capacity of the said pond was 7. 75 million gallons and not 15 million gallons as stated by the respondent. The petitioner has further referred to respondents letter dated 2/11/1981 and annexed the same as Exh. a to the rejoinder affidavit. The same is reproduced herein as it has a material bearing to the controversy at hand. "oil and NATURAL GAS COMMISSION Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar. Dated : November,2,1981. Ank/se (P)/b (14)/81-82/1458 To, Messrs. Hindustan Development Corpn. 1/2180, Relief Chambers, Nanpura Main Road, Surat - 395001. Dear Sirs,in response to your letter of 28/8/1981 informing us about the leakage of gas around Well No. 1, we have examined the position. THE surface leakages noticed are not likely to cause any danger to your plant. However, as a precautionary measure, we intend to fence the area around the well to prevent any unauthorised persons causing any fire hazard around the well. THE surface leakages noticed are not likely to cause any danger to your plant. However, as a precautionary measure, we intend to fence the area around the well to prevent any unauthorised persons causing any fire hazard around the well. IT is requested that you also may not allow any hot job near or around the gas well which can cause fire hazard. THERE is a gas charged water horizon at 400 below. Therefore, it is suggested that in case you are drilling any tubewell to this depth adequate precautions may be taken against the possibility of gas gushing out. THANKING you, yours faithfully, sd/- (T. Thomas) supdtg. Engineer, (Prodn) ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar. Copy to :1 Supdtg. Geologist, ONGC, Ankleshwar. This has reference to your investigation report No. Ank/geol/olpad/81 dated 9-9-1981. 2 Ex. Engineer, (P) (Testing), ONGC Ankleshwar. He should initiate the case for permanent acquisition of land for 65 x 100 M around the well. (T. Thomas) supdtg. Engineer, (Prodn) Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar. " ( 25 ) ON going through the aforesaid letter it is very clear that the respondent corporation has in no uncertain terms stated that the surface leakage are not likely to cause any danger to the plant of the petitioner and that the respondent intended to fence the area around the well to prevent any unauthorised persons causing any fire hazard around the well. It is further stated that only in case of any hot job near or around the gas well a fire hazard was iminent and that adequate precautions were required to be taken in case of drilling of Tubewell at depth of 400 feet. This letter from the Superintending Engineer (Prodn.) Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar specifically belies the claim of the respondent that the entire area is danger zone as is sought to be made out from the affidavit-in-reply. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondent that there was any borewell drilled by the petitioner at the depth of 400 feet. ( 26 ) IT appears that the entire decision making process has been tainted by collateral consideration and in the name of a policy decision the petitioner is being kept out from participating in the tender process (though admittedly an application is accepted from him) for supply of additional natural gas from Olpad GGS. ( 26 ) IT appears that the entire decision making process has been tainted by collateral consideration and in the name of a policy decision the petitioner is being kept out from participating in the tender process (though admittedly an application is accepted from him) for supply of additional natural gas from Olpad GGS. This comes into sharper focus when one takes into consideration that since 1982 the petitioner has been availing natural gas supply from the same installation of the respondent to the extent of 12000 cu. mt. per day going upto 15000 cu. mt. per day and even today it is being supplied the same quantity of natural gas which is correspondingly utilised by the petitioner as feed stock for manufacturing its chemicals. Another aspect of the matter which becomes material is the fact that the petitioner has consistently kept on making demand for additional quantity of natural gas and uptil February,2000 the stand of the respondent and GAIL was that no additional quantity of natural gas is available from Olpad GGS. Taking the statement of the respondent and GAIL at face value that till date no additional supply was available and it is only recently that such additional gas is available, the petitioner is not being allowed to avail of such additional gas by virtue of the restrictive clause placed in the advertisement of February,2000. This restrictive clause is sought to be explained in the reply affidavit by referring to the incident of 1995 without showing any correlation : that the said incident had nexus with either the factory premises or the reservoir already put up by the petitioner; or to the effect that it was on account of some negligence or tortious act by the petitioner which occasioned such blow out. To the contrary the respondent in its reply affidavit of 25/4/2000 states that as per respondents knowledge and belief this pond/tank must have disturbed the ground equilibrium condition which consequently caused cracks which became large with passage of time and due to sippage of water from the tank the same can cause gas eruption. Thus, it can be seen that the respondent has presumed that such an event must have occurred because of water reservoir constructed by the petitioner within its area of factory. Thus, it can be seen that the respondent has presumed that such an event must have occurred because of water reservoir constructed by the petitioner within its area of factory. At this juncture it will not be out of place to bear in mind that the petitioner is operating in GIDC Industrial Estate which has been put by the GIDC and is manned by the GIDC. In case the respondent would have been right in having the belief that entire zone is a danger zone, GIDC would not have acquired the land, put up estate and invited industries to occupy the area within such estate. In fact nothing of this nature has been shown to exist on record. ( 27 ) THOUGH the allotment has been made to two parties and the said parties have been informed by the respondent by virtue of letter dated 2/2/2001; the parties have also been put to notice that the said allotment is subject to decision of Special Civil Application No. 2899 of 2000 filed by the petitioner against the respondent regarding allocation of gas, and hence allotment having already been made loses its significance. Not only that we have been informed at the time of hearing by the Advocate for the respondent that the said two parties have not yet executed the consequential contracts which they were required to do in terms of the aforesaid letter of allotment by 15/3/2001. ORDER. ( 28 ) IN view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case this petition is allowed. The respondent shall take into consideration the petitioners tender for allotment of additional gas to the extent of 8000 cu. mt. per day and the same shall be allotted to the petitioner upon the petitioner entering into the necessary contract with respondent or GAIL as the case may be and fulfilling all other terms as may be necessary for supply of such additional quantity of natural gas. The respondent shall pass the necessary order for allotment within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court or a certified copy of this order whichever is earlier. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. .