ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. In the instant Writ Application, the petitioners pray for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents and directing them not to impose unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions upon the petitioners industry and allow him to run the same in relation to items for which it is duly registered as a prospective supplier of polythene bags, sheet, nuts and blots since 1978. The petitioners further pray that they be allowed to participate in the tender circulated vide Notice No. PUR-/03/P-262 for purposes of supplying polythene sheets. 2. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that the petitioners industry was established in the year 1972- 73 and initially it was set up for the manufacture of polythene sheets and bags. In the year 1978, a letter was issued on 4.10.1978 by the Bokaro Steel Plant addressed to the petitioner informing it that its name had been registered as a prospective supplier of ploythene bags. That letter dated 4.10.1978 is Annexure-1 to the Writ Application. The petitioner has stated that since then, it has been supplying polythene bags to Bokaro Steel Plant. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner installed additional infrastructure which were required for the manufacture of nuts and bolts and upon being satisfied, the Bokaro Steel Plant vide letter dated 13.11.1984 (Annexure 2) enlisted it for both polythene bags as well as nuts and bolts. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner continued getting orders from the Bokaro Steel Plant for both the items and it went on successfully executing the works. In fact, even the Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BIADA) made request to the Bokaro Steel Plant for placement of orders with the petitioner and one such letter has been brought on record vide Annexure-4. 5. However, due to stringent conditions, the petitioner could not get sufficient work orders since 1996 and it was not in a position to pay electricity charges and therefore, the electric line was disconnected some time in the year 1999. Thereafter, on 05.03.2001, the respondent No. 2 issued a letter to the petitioner asking it to show cause as to why the land allotted to it be not cancelled for not being in production. Thereafter, on 05.03.2001, the respondent No. 2 issued a letter to the petitioner asking it to show cause as to why the land allotted to it be not cancelled for not being in production. The petitioner has stated that apart from the aforementioned facts directing the petitioner to show cause, the letter also instructed Bokaro Ste,el Plant not to issue any orders to the petitioner. 6. On 16.03.2001, the petitioner replied stating inter alia that there was acute scarcity of orders for the last 3/4 years from the Bokaro Steel Plant and therefore, the industry could neither run nor by streamlined. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, it approached BIADA and they asked him to install a diesel generating set in the factory. The petitioner has stated that it was already in possession of a generator, but because of the instruction given by BIADA, it purchased a new generator worth Rs. 25,480/- so as to tide over their condition with the hope of revival of the industry. Thereafter, requests were made to the respondent No. 1 to inspect the factory vide letter dated 02.05.2001 (Annexure-6) and on 16.05.2001, the respondent No. 2 issued a letter (Annexure 7) asking it to furnish details in relation to orders pending with it. The petitioner accordingly replied on 24.05.2001 and gave details vide Annexure 8 but even thereafter, on 11.06.2001, the respondent No. 2 issued a letter informing the petitioner that it would not be possible to place any orders until they were satisfied with the production capabilities of the petitioner. At paragraph 13, the petitioner has made reference of the aforementioned letter without annexing a copy thereof and has stated that although generator set was already installed in the factory, yet, the respondent No. 2 was not satisfied in relation to the availability of the generating set and with the document showing purchase thereof. 7. Consequently, on 25.8.2001, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No. 1 to look into matter and also to revoke the order of suspension of business. 7. Consequently, on 25.8.2001, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No. 1 to look into matter and also to revoke the order of suspension of business. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 directed the respondent No. 2 to issue a letter to the Bokaro Steel Plant for revocation of the order of suspension of the petitioner industry and thereafter, the respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated 1.9.2001 (Annexure 10) addressed to the Executive Director (Material Management), Bokaro Steel Plant informing him that the petitioner industry was capable of manufacturing 60 M.T. of nuts and bolts annually and accordingly requested that they may be given work. However, according to the petitioner, nothing was mentioned about polythene sheets and bags. 8. On 8.9.2001, by Annexure 11, the respondent No. 3 issued a letter wherein while referring to the earlier letter dated 1.9.2001 referred to above, he requested that purchase inquiry/order may be placed with the firm. Soon thereafter, the petitioner received an enquiry for polythene sheets, but all of a sudden on 29.9.2001, the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner vide Annexure 12 that the lender document issued to it for polythene sheets was not applicable to the petitioner as they were not entitled to avail that facility and accordingly, they were directed to return the tender documents. Thereafter, the petitioner was not given any sympathetic consideration, as a result whereof the petitioner has filed this Writ Application with the prayers indicated above and also with a prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for tender notice in respect of polythene sheets and not to allot the said work to any body else till disposed of this case. 9. In the counter affidavit sworn by the Additional Chief Law Officer of Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL, it has been stated that work orders based on requirement are issued and because of general depression and recession in the market, the requirement of polythene and nuts and bolts have gone down. On 12.1.2001, the Steel Authority of India Limited were informed by the respondent No. 2 about the status of a number of units and oh the basis of an inquiry and inspection conducted during the period October to December, it was found that altogether 53 units were either not working or closed. On 12.1.2001, the Steel Authority of India Limited were informed by the respondent No. 2 about the status of a number of units and oh the basis of an inquiry and inspection conducted during the period October to December, it was found that altogether 53 units were either not working or closed. These units were enlisted in 5 (five) categories in the following manner :-- Category I. Units having no electricity, machine and, DG Set Category II. Units having no electricity and DT Set Category III. Units having no DG Set and their claims for electricity supply was doubtful Category IV. Units found closed during inspection and surprise visit Category V. Units found closed during surprise inspection. 10. The petitioner was enlisted under Category II having neither any power nor generator nor the capacity to manufacture anything and therefore, after a joint enquiry made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it was adviced to stop giving enquiry and work to the petitioner vide Annexure A dated 12.1.2001. 11. When subsequently, however, they learnt that the petitioner had installed one DG Set and it was capable of manufacturing nuts and volts, they thought that matters would improve and/ accordingly, they again made an enquiry for purposes of assessing as to whether the petitioner was capable of manufacturing ploythene sheets also. Opportunity was given to the petitioner to establish and prove that it was in a position to manufacture ploythene, but it was discovered, during the course of inspection, that the existing machinery were not capable of manufacturing polythene as they were more than 25-26 years old. Moreover, the petitioner also could not start the machine to show and/or to establish that they were in a functional state. Consequently, they informed the respondent No. 2 by their letter dated 3.1.2002 (Annexure B) about the status of the petitioner. 12. These respondents have further stated that they cannot be compelled to give work orders to any specific person and to that extent a writ would not lie. 13. The counter affidavit of BIADA (respondent No. 1 and 2) is also on record wherein it has been stated that after allotment of land, the Unit installed plant and machinery for polythene bags, but could not start trial/commercial production since inception. The plant and machinery remained unutilized and after 4/5- years, they became outdated and rusted. 13. The counter affidavit of BIADA (respondent No. 1 and 2) is also on record wherein it has been stated that after allotment of land, the Unit installed plant and machinery for polythene bags, but could not start trial/commercial production since inception. The plant and machinery remained unutilized and after 4/5- years, they became outdated and rusted. On 2.4.1979, Shri M.M. Pandey requested for additional registration of nuts and bolts and other items and the authority allowed registration only in respect of nuts and bolts with non- ancillary status. Inspite thereof, the Unit could not improve its production capabilities. They have further stated in paragraph 12 that after obtaining permanent registration, the petitioner Unit disconnected its electric supply and stopped production. In the meantime, the Unit indulged in wrong practice of trading of electricity and a committee was constituted on 23.6.2001, jointly by Bokaro Steel Plant and BIADA. The said committee inspected the Unit and they found the unit to be closed. They also found no electricity supply and they also did not find any alternative provision for purposes of meeting electricity requirement, such as a diesel generating set. Consequently, the Committee by letter dated 12.1.2001 recommended immediate stoppage of work/non-placement of work orders to the Unit. Even therefore, the Unit after having installed one DG Set of 12.5KVA, was allowed manufacture nuts and bolts, but the DG Set could not undertake manufacture of polythene bags. These respondents have also stated that the local had made a complaint against the petitioner regarding mis-utilisation of the diesel generating set. According to the complaint, the proprietor had shifted the diesel generating set to a nearby local market for supply of power on hire, which again resulted in stoppage of production in the Unit. Upon receiving such a public complaint, the Development Officer visited the Unit and actually found that its promoter/proprietor, M.M. Pandey had shifted the generating set from the factory premises to the Kurmidih Area for supply of electricity on hire. This was reported to the Managing Director and action has been started after approval of the Managing Director. The public complaints, the report of the Development Officer and note sheet are annexures J, K and L. The aforementioned facts have been stated by the respondents Nos. This was reported to the Managing Director and action has been started after approval of the Managing Director. The public complaints, the report of the Development Officer and note sheet are annexures J, K and L. The aforementioned facts have been stated by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in paragraph 15 of their counter affidavit and all that the petitioner has to say in his reply is as follows : "That the statement made in paragraph 15 is totally false and misleading. The letter said to have been given by some persons has purposely been made and manufactured by respondent No. 2 just to justify his mala fide action against filing of the writ application." 14. The aforementioned reply of the petitioner is itself mala fide. The pleadings in this case are sufficient to show that the petitioner was totally incapable of living upto its expectations. It does not say anything with regard to the report which was sent on the basis of a valid enquiry and which is contained in Annexure K. The plea of mala fide against the Development Officer is nothing, but a plea to save itself from having to give actual explanations. Why should the Development Officer or for that matter why should Officers of BIADA have any malice against the petitioner and that too, all of a sudden? The pleadings show that right from the beginning the petitioner was unable to perform, but even then, the respondents patiently went on bearing with it. Therefore, the plea of malice against the Development Officer must be rejected as a mere afterthought on the part of the petitioner. 15. Moreover, in the instant case, it is apparent that the petitioner Unit was taken on as a proposed supplier and the respondents were supposed to be its consumers. If the consumers are not happy with the supplier, how can a Writ Court enforce them to go on purchasing or placing orders with a person or a body with whose services they are not at all satisfied with? These are matters which are best left to the discretion of the respondents and they are the best judges to assess as to who it capable of performing and who is not. These are matters which are best left to the discretion of the respondents and they are the best judges to assess as to who it capable of performing and who is not. The Writ Court is concerned only with the legality of the decision and in that process if it is found that the decision making process was per se illegal, then perhaps, a Writ Court may be called upon to exercise jurisdiction. In the instant case, this Court does not find any illegality in the decision that the respondents have taken and therefore, the judgment cited by Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Senior Advocate in the case of United India Periodicals Private Limited v. M. and N Publications Limited and Ors. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 446 cannot be said to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Consequently, this Court therefore, holds that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Application is dismissed. However, the dismissal hereof shall not preclude the petitioner from filing a representation before the appropriate authorities and if the petitioner is able to satisfy that it has all the necessary infrastructure to live up to the expectations of the respondents, then there is no reason why the authorities would not respond and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law would not respond and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs.