D. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THIS intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the concerned Area manager of the Food Corporation of India (in short the 'corporation' ). It is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who, contrary to the policy decisions taken by the Corporation in its meeting dated 19-10-1996 and the terms of the contract entered into by the appellant and respondent-Labour Co-operative Society, has directed for renegotiating the terms for unexpired period of contract on the basis of the policy decision taken by the Corporation in 1989, which is no more in existence, ( 2 ) THE Corporation had called tender for awarding contract of handling and transporting of food grains at Mysore Depot for the period 30-5-1997 to 29-5-1999. Respondent 1, which is a Labour Co-operative society had also submitted its tender. After negotiation between the parties, rates for handling and transporting were fixed and the contract was entered into. In the contract, it had been specifically stipulated that.-" (A) Handling work at FSD Mysore. 585% ASOR (Five hundred and eighty-five per cent only) above the schedule of rates for services, without any additional benefits". ( 3 ) IN the present case, open tenders were invited and the above stipulation was incorporated keeping in view the policy decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in the 252nd adjourned meeting held on 19-10-1996 (Annexure-5 to the W. A. Nos. 5365 to 5385 of 1998 ). In the connected appeal in W. A. Nos. 5365 to 5385 of 1998 (DD: 28-11-2001), we have already held that the policy decision taken by the board of Directors of Food Corporation of India in their meeting held on 19-10-1996 governs all the matters relating to grant of handling contracts. The said resolution of the Board of Directors reads as under. "subject. WITHDRAWAL of various concessions to Co-operative Societies including Labour Co-operative Societies in FCI consequent upon decisions of High Courts. After protracted discussions, the Board resolved as under. "resolved that various concessions/preferences extended to the various Co-operative Societies including Labour Co-operative Societies be and are hereby withdrawn and such Societies shall continue to participate in tender enquiries at par with other private parties as per usual terms and conditions" ". After protracted discussions, the Board resolved as under. "resolved that various concessions/preferences extended to the various Co-operative Societies including Labour Co-operative Societies be and are hereby withdrawn and such Societies shall continue to participate in tender enquiries at par with other private parties as per usual terms and conditions" ". ( 4 ) IN the above view of the matter, the respondent-Labour Co-operative society was not entitled to any amenity as had been provided by the corporation under its earlier policy decisions which are no more in existence. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent-Society has pleaded that the Deputy Managers of some of the godowns in their areas have extended amenities to some of the Labour Co-operative Societies despite its withdrawal by the Corporation and therefore the Corporation is bound to extend such amenities to the respondent-Labour Co-operative society as well. ( 6 ) IT is well-settled that no parity or equality can be claimed for enforcement of illegal acts or illegal orders. ( 7 ) IN the case of Chandigarh Administration and Another v Jagjit singh and Another, it has been held that. "generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose". ( 8 ) THE above principle has been followed recently in the case of Style (Dress Land) v Union Territory, Chandigarh and Another. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is a] lowed. --- *** --- .