JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is proclaimed to have been filed in public interest by the petitioner-Mazdoor Ekta Samiti of Ganganagar Sugar Mills and Distillery based at Jhotwara, Jaipur through its General Secretary wherein two prayers essentially have been incorporated. First of all it has been prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued by this court restraining the respondent No.2-The Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter shortly referred to as "the RSGSM Company") from awarding contract to respondent No.4-M/s. Associated Alcohols & Breweries Ltd. and respondent No.5 - M/s. Globus Agronics Ltd. Alwar or any other private contractor for supply of country-liquor. Secondly it has been prayed that the respondent No.2-The Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. be directed not to use plastic Poly Pouches in the packing and supply of country-liquor as also to issue any other writ or direction, which is deemed just and proper. 2. While relating the circumstances under which this writ petition has been filed the petitioners have stated that the petitioner No. 1 is a trade-union of the employees working in the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., which is registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act and its main object is to safeguard the interest of its members who are economically, socially, morally and politically weak. The petitioner No.2 is a share-holder of the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. who claims to be mainly interested in the affairs and the management of the company. It would be a futile exercise to further relate the aims and objects of the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., as it is not in dispute but the cause which ostensibly is claimed to have prompted the petitioner to file this writ petition arose when the respondent No. 1-State of Rajasthan constituted a committee under the convenorship of one Rajsingh Nirwan for reorganisation, strengthening and disinvestment of State Public Section Undertakings and Industrial Development and this committee submitted its report in the month of August, 2001 with its recommendations. One of the recommendations of this committee was that Sugar Division of the respondent No.2 - Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. cannot be revived/rehabilitated on a viable basis and therefore, sugar division should be closed down. One of the recommendations of this committee was that Sugar Division of the respondent No.2 - Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. cannot be revived/rehabilitated on a viable basis and therefore, sugar division should be closed down. The committee further recommended with respect to liquor division also stating therein that although the liquor division has been giving substantial profits to the Government but State Government should not participate in such commercial activities and, therefore, the liquor division of the company should be privatised. In pursuance thereof the Secretary of the Department of Industries, State Enterprises Khadi and Gramadyog sought the opinion of the Finance Secretary on the report of Rajsingh Nirwan Committee and, thereafter the Department of Excise, Government of Rajasthan vide its letter dated 11.10.2001 also sought the comments of the respondent No.2 - RSGSM Company on the aforesaid report which forwarded its comments on the same to the State Government and is reported to have stated therein that in the public interest sugar division of the respondent-company should be modernised so that losses may be reduced and liquor division should not be privatised because it is giving annual income of Rs. 1400 lacs against selling prices of liquor and Rs. 100 lacs on account of sales-tax. It is asserted by the petitioner that ultimately a decision was taken that neither sugar division would be closed nor liquor division would be privatised and hence the Excise Commissioner of Rajasthan, Udaipur vide his letter dated 12.2.2002 directed the respondent-company to make arrangement of raw-material in order.to supply country- liquor for the year 2002-03. However, it is alleged, that the Director incharge of the Ganganagar Sugar Mill ignored and over-looked the instructions of the State Government and on his own took a decision to award the contract for supply of country-liquor to the private contractors, due to which the petitioner- union and the other labour unions gave a representation on 14.3.2002 to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan requesting therein not to award the contract for supply of country-liquor to any of the private contractors. 3. The Board of Directors thereafter on 13.3.2002 is stated to have constituted a committee comprising of its Financial Advisor, Dy. General Manager (P&S), Chief Distillery Chemist, Dy. 3. The Board of Directors thereafter on 13.3.2002 is stated to have constituted a committee comprising of its Financial Advisor, Dy. General Manager (P&S), Chief Distillery Chemist, Dy. General Manager (Purchase) and Senior Manager (P&S) for stating the details of cost benefit, analysis of producing country-liquor, for automation of the bottling of country-liquor and directed the committee to make its proposal to hold/achieve cost effectiveness and higher productivity. The Board of Directors of the company also directed the aforesaid committee to furnish the report latest by 31.5.2002. The case of the petitioners is that the Board of Directors appears to have taken a decision thereafter to install the semi-automatic plant of the liquor division of the respondent-company and the respondent-company issued an advertisement by which details of plant alongwith literature and brochures were sought from the reputed firms. The respondent-company is also reported to have made enquiries vide its letter dated 30/31.5.2002 from the Secretary, All India Distillers Association, New Delhi with respect to installation of automatic/semi automatic bottling plant but it is alleged that the Director incharge of the company over-looked all these aspects and took the decision of his own accord to award contract of supply of 50 lacs of LPI to the private contractors. In view of the decision taken by the Director incharge of the respondent-company, an advertisement was issued by the Dy. General Manager (P&S) inviting tenders for the contract which was widely published in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar in its edition on 6.4.2002. The respondent-company invited the tenders for giving contract for supply of 50 Lacs of L.P.L. country-liquor in glass/pet bottles. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted the tenders for supply of 25 lacs of LPL to the respondent-company quoting their rates in pet/glass bottles. 4. It is at this stage that the petitioners appear to have felt aggrieved and thought it fit to file this writ petition challenging the decision of the respondent No.2-RSGSM-Company wherein it has been first of all alleged that the Director incharge of the respondent-company took the decision on his own without placing the matter before the Board of Directors and without waiting for the report of the committee constituted by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 30.3.2002. By his decision, the Director incharge decided to award the contract to the private contractors which according to the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. It has also been alleged by them that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not reliable firms for supply of country-liquor to the respondent-company as earlier in the year 2001 they were awarded the contract to supply rectified spirit which was not found upto the mark and a proceeding regarding black-listing of this company is also pending with the respondent-company. It has still further been urged by the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not eligible for being given the contract for supply of country-liquor in pursuance of the impugned tenders as both of them have not submitted any tenders for supply of whole of the 50 lacs LPL country-liquor, even the rates for supply of liquor which is proposed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is quite high so the at if the contract is to be given by the respondent-company then the respondent-company would suffer a net loss of Rs. 4.80 crore apart from the profit which would have been earned by the respondent-company if the contract as proposed is not given. It is submitted that the estimated cost of the supply order of the 50 lacs of LPL country-liquor of the respondent-company comes to about Rs. 16.70 crores whereas for the same quantity of liquor, the respondent-company would be paying Rs. 21.50 cores to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the decision of the Director incharge of the respondent-company by which the contract for supply of 50 Lacs of LPL country-liquor has been given, as arbitrary, illegal and against the interest of the respondent-company and its employees as well as against the public interest which is aimed at providing benefits to few proprietors of the firm. 5. The petitioners are further aggrieved of the action of the respondent-company who decided to award the contract for supply of country-liquor to private contractors before utilising its man-power and increasing the production of country-liquor in plastic pouch/pet bottles and hence they have filed the writ petition challenging this decision. 5. The petitioners are further aggrieved of the action of the respondent-company who decided to award the contract for supply of country-liquor to private contractors before utilising its man-power and increasing the production of country-liquor in plastic pouch/pet bottles and hence they have filed the writ petition challenging this decision. Thus they have challenged the bottling of country-liquor in polythene pouches and have stated that 913 workmen are available for bottling of country-liquor but the respondent-company would be using about 35% of the man-power capacity of labour for bottling due to the increase in pouch production and rest of the man-power i.e. about 65% would be sitting idle without any work although they would be getting their salaries. It has, therefore, been urged that the decision of the respondent-company to supply the liquor in bottles without utilising its man-power is per se arbitrary causing unnecessary loss to the State. Hence the entire exercise of awarding the contract to private persons is challenged as illegal, arbitrary and against the public interest which would merely serve the private interest of someone at the cost of public exchequer. It has also been alleged that the policy decision of the respondent-company have to be taken by the Board of Directors but the Director incharge of the company bye-passed the Board of Directors and took a decision on its own without taking the Board of Directors into confidence. It has been submitted that the impugned advertisement is, therefore, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It was still further urged that the respondent-company Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. only has the licence to manufacture and supply country-liquor on wholesome basis and no other respondent-company has such licence and hence the decision to award contract to private contractors for manufacture and supply of country-liquor is illegal, which is also an offence under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. B.L. Sharma while supporting the aforesaid facts and stand taken by the petitioners has first of all submitted that the respondent-company Ganganagar Sugar Mills supplied quality country- liquor to the State Government for the last 46 years and due to the good quality of liquor supplied by the respondent-company, no liquor hooch tragedy has taken place in the State of Rajasthan whereas such tragedies have occurred in various other States of India. It is his contention that in case this function is entrusted to private individual companies it might result into supply of low quality liquor which might also result in killing innocent people. He also commented upon the background and antecedents of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in order to impress upon this Court that they are not reliable contractors as they have supplied sub-standard quality of rectified spirit to the respondent No.2 Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. in the year 2001-02 and if contract of supply and manufacture of country-liquor is awarded to them, there would be strong possibility of the liquor hooch tragedy in the State of Rajasthan also. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondent-company in awarding the contract to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has been challenged as illegal, arbitrary and against public interest of the people of Rajasthan. 7. Shri Sharma has, further challenged the use of plastic pouch/pet bottles for packing of country-liquor by the respondent-companies which is stated to be dangerous to the environment as these are plastic materials which are non bio-degredable and cannot be reused. He has submitted that the packing of country-liquor in plastic pouches and pet bottles is being increased every year and the increase of plastic pouches by the respondent-company is dangerous not only to the environment but would also further cause financial loss to the respondent No.2-Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. In the petition it has been stated that the man-power engaged for the purpose of bottling of the country-liquor was utilised fully but due to increase in the production of country-liquor in plastic pouches/pet bottles, only about 35% man-power is being used by the respondent-company and 65% employees engaged in bottling of country-liquor are sitting idle and getting their salary without work. According to the petitioners, packing of country-liquor in plastic pouches/pet bottles is illegal and against the public interest as well as the national interest. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners have prayed for restraining the respondent No.2 - Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. from awarding the contract to respondent Nos. 4 and 4 and also forbidding them in packing the country-liquor in plastic pouches. 8. The writ petition has been contested by each of the respondents separately by filing their counter-affidavits. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners have prayed for restraining the respondent No.2 - Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. from awarding the contract to respondent Nos. 4 and 4 and also forbidding them in packing the country-liquor in plastic pouches. 8. The writ petition has been contested by each of the respondents separately by filing their counter-affidavits. While on set of reply has been filed by respondent No.1, State of Rajasthan alongwith respondent No.3 The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur, another set of reply has been filed by respondent No.2 RSGSM and the private contractors who have offered their bid for supply of the country-liquor to the respondent No.2 RSGSM who are respondent No.4 M/s. Associated Alcohols & Breweries Ltd. and respondent No.5 M/s. Globus Agronics Ltd., Alwar. One of the common grounds taken by all these respondents contesting the writ petition is that this writ petition cannot be treated as a public interest litigation as there is no public interest involved in it since the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved of any order passed by the respondents. Another common ground on the basis of which this writ petition is contested is that the petitioners have sought to challenge the policy decision taken by the State of Rajasthan which cannot be challenged by the petitioners as it is a settled principle of law that policy decision once taken by the State after due enquiry and after considering the public interest cannot be challenged before any Court and the decision would not be interfered with by the Courts. Infact the respondents State of Rajasthan alongwith the Rajasthan Excise Commissioner have categorically stated that the policy decision of the State had been taken in the interest of raising revenue and making the pet bottles of the liquor easily available to the liquor contractors and licensees issued by the State Government which in turn increases the revenue in the form of duty and the licence fees etc. It is further stated by them that the policy decision has been taken by the State Government to gradually reduce the supply of pouches and increase the supply of liquor in bottles for which the RSGSM is the sole producer which has been permitted to get the country-liquor manufactured from the private parties. It is further stated by them that the policy decision has been taken by the State Government to gradually reduce the supply of pouches and increase the supply of liquor in bottles for which the RSGSM is the sole producer which has been permitted to get the country-liquor manufactured from the private parties. The excise policy decision for the year 2002-03 has also been quoted from the letter of the State Government dated 25.1.2002 and certain guidelines for implementing the policy decision has also been incorporated in the letter dated 19.3.2002 which was sent to the Excise Commissioner as well as to respondent No.2 RSGSM. The copy of the letter has also been annexed to the writ petition as Annex-R-1/1 to the counter-affidavit. Thus the decision of the Director incharge of respondent No.2-RSGSM Company who is alleged to have taken the decision on his own to award contract to private parties has been strongly refuted by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in their separate reply filed by them. It has been categorically stated at para 24 of the reply of respondent No.2 that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the Director Incharge had taken decision on his own to award contract of country-liquor to private contractors; infact it was Government decision whereby some work was to be given to the private contractors for filling country-liquor and in pursuance to that only, a tender was issued inviting supply. Thus it has been stated that the Director Incharge had undertaken all its action as per the instructions issued by the Government of Rajasthan wherein it was instructed that the RSGSM should immediately float tenders for filling the country-liquor for its onward supply and hence the action of the company is fully in consonance with the instructions and direction of the State Government. Therefore the allegation that the policy decision was taken by the respondent No.2-RSGSM at the level of the Director Incharge alone, which was his individual decision could not be treated as a policy decision is absolutely off the record. Infact all steps by the Director Incharge have been taken as per the instructions and directions of the State Government under its excise policy. Necessary permission was also given for awarding the contract of filling country-liquor by private contractors and for the said purpose No Objection Certificate (NOC for short) was also issued by the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan. 9. Infact all steps by the Director Incharge have been taken as per the instructions and directions of the State Government under its excise policy. Necessary permission was also given for awarding the contract of filling country-liquor by private contractors and for the said purpose No Objection Certificate (NOC for short) was also issued by the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan. 9. In so far as the status of the employees of the respondent No.2 RSGSM Company that they are sitting idle inspite of the fact that they are drawing salary has also been refuted and it has been submitted that 1136 employees are employed in liquor division and they are working in separate units of the liquor division to undertake different work. It is stated that the man-power of the company is being used completely and the packing of liquor in pouches has not resulted in idling the labour in as much as the company has diverted its labour for packing of liquor in pouches. Thus the labour force is fully engaged although small number of employees (approximately 140 employees) may be found to be in excess which may not be a reason weighty enough to challenge the policy decision. 10. In so far as the averments pertaining to the supply of liquor in plastic pouches are concerned, it is stated that the plastic pouches are of good quality which is permissible under the provisions of law and such plastic pouches can be 100% recycled. It has been further asserted that the packing of liquor in plastic pouches is beneficial in many ways as there is no possibility of adulteration in it as they are made air-packed and once it is punctured even by needle the originality of the pouch will be immediately be changed. Even the cost of plastic pouches is found to be beneficial to all concerned. It has also been clarified that the use of poly pouches has never resulted into any environmental problem as the use of poly pouches is permissible with required microns and such poly pouches are 100% recycled without leaving any toxic effect. Besides this the company is using the poly pouches within the permissible limits and it is not creating any environmental problems. However, the Government of Rajasthan has also taken a decision to reduce production of poly pouches and that order would be gradually complied with. Besides this the company is using the poly pouches within the permissible limits and it is not creating any environmental problems. However, the Government of Rajasthan has also taken a decision to reduce production of poly pouches and that order would be gradually complied with. Besides all this, it has been stated that a separate writ petition is also pending before this Court which has challenged the packing of liquor in poly pouches. However, the company had not been made a party to this writ petition but it has later been impleaded to it. 11. The replies which have been filed separately by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are the private contractors and have offered their bid for supply of country-liquor have also stated that no loss would be caused to respondent No. 2 - RSGSM if the tenders are awarded to the private distilleries because only 10% of the total volume of the country-liquor would be supplied by the private distilleries and rest of the supply would continue to be made by respondent No.2 and due to this reason the workers of the RSGSM would not be affected in any manner if the contract is awarded to private distilleries. In this regard it has been elaborated that in the current financial year from 1st April, 2002, the Excise Department of the Government of Rajasthan had issued the Excise policy wherein it was made dear that upto 10% of the country liquor requirement can be procured by the RSGSM from private parties and, therefore on 10th June, 2002 pursuant to the above change in the policy respondent No.2 RSGSM invited tenders from the private distilleries. On invitation of the aforesaid tenders respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed tenders on 20th June, 2002 for the supply of country-liquor alongwith an earnest money deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs. The petitioners failed to file the writ petition in April 2002 when the policy decision was taken by the State Government. The petitioner failed to file the writ petition even when the tenders were invited on 10th June, 2002 and hence it has been averred that the writ petition suffers from gross delay and latches since the respondents Nos. 4 & 5 have invested huge amount for the installation and purchase of machinery and plants etc. The petitioner failed to file the writ petition even when the tenders were invited on 10th June, 2002 and hence it has been averred that the writ petition suffers from gross delay and latches since the respondents Nos. 4 & 5 have invested huge amount for the installation and purchase of machinery and plants etc. It has been submitted that the petitioners had knowledge of all the stages of development which took place before a final decision was taken to invite tenders from private distilleries. 12. In so far as the packing of liquor in the plastic pouches in concerned, it has been stated that RSGSM does not have any automatic bottling plant and does not have any infrastructure to fill the country-liquor in 375 ML or 180 ML bottles, since the consumers cannot easily purchase the bottle of 750 ML although the consumers would usually purchase the bottles of 375 ML and 180 ML pouches bottling would cost lesser amount and hence a commercially viable decision was taken for supplying country-liquor in the bottles of 180 ML and 375 ML sizes bottles by the private distilleries. It has been further submitted that since the RSGSM had no infrastructure for bottling the country-liquor in appropriate size of bottles and it was not possible to supply the bottles of 750 ml size, the respondent No.2 RSGSM have no option but to supply the liquor in plastic pouches and due to this fact the private companies continue to produce country-liquor in the hazardous plastic pouches but it has been assured that the said situation would be gradually avoided once the contract is awarded to the private distilleries. 13. The counsel for the respondent-State as also the counsel for the respondent No.2 RSGSM and the private contractors respondents Nos. 4 and 5 unanimously submitted that the writ petition in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances has no merit and is fit to be rejected outright. 14. 13. The counsel for the respondent-State as also the counsel for the respondent No.2 RSGSM and the private contractors respondents Nos. 4 and 5 unanimously submitted that the writ petition in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances has no merit and is fit to be rejected outright. 14. Having deliberated over the contentions of the counsel for the parties in the light of the facts and situation which have been narrated in the several counter-affidavits filed by the respondents separately, the picture which emerges is that the petitioners have first of all ignored the fact that if a writ petition on the ground that the packing of liquor should not have been done in poly pouches is already pending in the High Court, another writ petition for the same reason should not have been filed. However, this prayer has been dubbed alongwith the challenge to the policy decision of the State of Rajasthan which took the decision to permit 10% of supply of country-liquor through private distilleries in the interest of raising revenue and the balance supply will still be continued to be made by the respondent No.2 RSGSM by continuing to purchase the balance quantity of liquor which is evident from the counter-affidavit. The question as to whether the policy decision of a particular Government can be challenged before the Court of Law has been coming up on numerous occasions and a consistent view has been taken that the policy decision is not fit to be challenged unless a particular Government acts capriciously or arbitrarily or in response to any ulterior considerations. In the case of Col. A.S. Sangwan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors., reported in 1980 (Supp.) SCC 560 , the learned judges of the Supreme Court have observed that:- "a policy once formulated may not be good for ever and it is perfectly within the competence of the Government to change it, rechange it, adjust it and readjust it according to the compulsions of the circumstances and the imperatives of the national considerations. The courts cannot give directions as to how a particular Government (which was Defence Ministry in that case) should function except to state that there is obligation on the Government not to act arbitrarily or maliciously for ulterior motives. The courts cannot give directions as to how a particular Government (which was Defence Ministry in that case) should function except to state that there is obligation on the Government not to act arbitrarily or maliciously for ulterior motives. If there are good and weighty reasons for adopting a particular policy and it can be reasonably inferred that it is acting justly and fairly, the courts would not enter into the exercise of judicial review of reviewing the policy decision." 15. In yet another case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India & others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC, 333 , while deliberating the scope of judicial review of policy decisions and economic decisions have held that : "the court cannot examine the relative merits of different economic policies and cannot strike down a policy merely on the ground that another policy would not have been fairer and better". 16. In this case the Government policy regarding disinvestment in public sector was refused to be reviewed by the Supreme Court as it was held therein that : "the court cannot examine its desirability. The Government's policy decision regarding disinvestment and transfer of its majority share (51% share of the company) was held not open to challenge since it did not violate any law and was not shown to be mala fide. It has further been held therein that the employees of the company even if adversely affected thereby will have to accept it as an incidence of service. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court had further observed therein that : "in a democracy it is a prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy and often a change in the Government may result in the shift in focus and change of economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of the petitioners merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical." 17. It has still further been observed that : "wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory function or the Constitution. In other words it is not for the courts to consider relative merits of different economic policies and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved. In matters relating to economic issues Government has, while taking a decision, right to trial and error as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within limits of authority". 18. It is thus clear that a court of law where a policy decision is under challenge will only reasonably satisfy itself about the bona fides of a particular policy decision taken by a particular Government and it is for this reason that we have entered into a meticulous scrutiny of the relative merits and demerits of the policy decisions taken by respondent No.1 which was implemented through the respondent No.2-RSGSM. 19. We are also not prepared to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the policy decision in the instant matter for awarding the contract to private distilleries for supply of 10% of the liquor was taken independently by the Director Incharge of RSGSM without any instructions to that effect from respondent No.1, the State Government of Rajasthan as it is clear that the respondent No.1 has filed a separate counter-affidavit and it is nowhere stated that the policy decision by the respondent No.2 was taken ignoring the Government instructions. The petitioners, in our opinion, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise this question before this court that there was no policy decision unless it were proved atleast prima facie that the respondent No.2-Director Incharge of RSGSM took the decision and acted upon it without having received any instructions from the respondent No.1. The petitioners, in our opinion, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise this question before this court that there was no policy decision unless it were proved atleast prima facie that the respondent No.2-Director Incharge of RSGSM took the decision and acted upon it without having received any instructions from the respondent No.1. Thus there is no basis for the petitioners to contend that the aforesaid policy decision is no policy decision in the eye of law and the same is hereby rejected. 20. Hence if it could be decided that the supply of country-liquor through the private distilleries was taken by the State Government of Rajasthan to the extent of 10% only in the interest of raising revenue and for this purpose certain packing changes were also permitted and poly pouches were also permitted in order to reduce the cost, the same is difficult to be interfered with as we are not prepared to conclude that the said decision was taken with ulterior motives or that it was not bona fide. It is neither feasible nor possible to delve into the minds of the persons taking this policy decision and come to a finding that it was bona fide or that it was taken with ulterior motive since the Courts are required to reasonably satisfy itself about the policy decision. The same perhaps could have been done if something glaring or alarmingly obnoxious could be brought to the notice of this Court. Since that is not the situation herein, we are not prepared to interfere with the same. 20. However, the counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sharma endeavoured to impress upon this Court that undue favours are being shown to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as they have been awarded the contract although they do not possess the requisite licence to manufacture the same, but this also could not be sustained in the wake of the reply of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 by their counsel Shri Paras Kuhad who invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the tender notice where it could be noticed that the contract would be executed only after the licence is produced by the contractor in whose favour the contract is awarded. It implied and goes without saying that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by their counsel Shri Paras Kuhad who invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the tender notice where it could be noticed that the contract would be executed only after the licence is produced by the contractor in whose favour the contract is awarded. It implied and goes without saying that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would not be permitted to start manufacturing and supply unless they qualify in regard to their essential conditions of eligibility to manufacture and make supply which includes possession of the requisite licence also. 21. In so far as the challenge to the supply of liquor in poly pouches is concerned, we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the same in this writ petition as this is only an incidental prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition and the main prayer of the petitioners is to restrain the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from awarding the contract to respondents Nos. 4 & 5. Since a separate writ petition regarding desirability of the packing of liquor in poly pouches is subject-matter of another writ petition hence the petitioners would be at liberty to get that writ petition heard and decided at an early date or to obtain the stay order therein. We are not entertaining this writ petition on this question for the obvious reason that two writ petitions for one and the same question cannot be entertained and is legally barred by the principle of constructive res-judicata. 22. In so far as the maintainability of this writ petition at the instance of the petitioners is concerned, we are of the opinion that he only public interest involved in this writ petition is whether the liquor could be supplied in poly pouches or not and that matter being already subjudice in this court in another writ petition, the petitioners should not have clubbed this prayer with this writ petition in order to give it the colour of a public interest litigation. It is apparent from the background of the matter narrated hereinbefore, that the core issue in this writ petition is not public interest but basically it challenges the eligibility of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to whom the contract has been awarded. It is apparent from the background of the matter narrated hereinbefore, that the core issue in this writ petition is not public interest but basically it challenges the eligibility of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to whom the contract has been awarded. If there had been a challenge only to the policy decision of the Government of taking a decision of supply of liquor through private distilleries, perhaps this writ petition could still have been treated as a public interest litigation but once the eligibility of certain contractors in receiving the contract is also under challenge at the instance of the petitioners it ceases to be a public interest litigation in our view. 23. As a consequence of the entire discussion, this writ petition is not fit to be entertained and hence it stands dismissed. Therefore the interim order of status-quo granted earlier on 23.7.2002 shall stand vacated forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******