Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.— One Mr. Rajendra R. Patel, partner of the ‘Gujarat Fertilizers’ a registered partnership firm is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 13969 of 2006. In all these petitions, the grievance is common and, therefore, this common order is passed. 2. What is challenged in these petitions is the notification/letter issued by the Union of India (Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Corporation) bearing No. 5-4/96 Fert. Law dated 22.07.2002, produced at Annexure-A (in Special Civil Application 13969 of 2006). Para 2 of the order sets out the object for which the order is issued. For ready perusal, the same is reproduced as under:— “2. This Ministry has observed that some State Governments, over a period of time, have notified large number of such grades of NPK mixtures, which have very minor inter-se variation in their nutrient content and many of them are identical or almost similar to the grades of complex fertilizers specified in Schedule I, Part A of FCO 1985 (Fertilizers Control Order). Such grades of mixtures mislead the farmers. It has also been observed that many of the grades notified by some States are very low analysis with NPK nutrient content even less than 20 units. This results in to paying higher cost per unit of nutrient by the farmer. Further, many State Government have not prescribed water soluble P-205 contents. Which affects the efficiency when applied in field.” Para 4 of the order sets out additional reasons for passing the order. Para 4 reads as under: “The State Governments have been permitting manufacture of both granular and physical NPK fertilizer mixtures, depending upon their requirement. It is often observed that the problem of quality control is much more serious in physical mixtures than the granular mixtures....” The order then proceeds to advise the State Governments. The advice is contained in Sub-paragraph (i),(ii) of Para 4 which reads as under: “(i) The State Governments should discourage the physical mixtures of NPK fertilizers. However, the existing physical mixtures of operation may be given two years time to switch over to the granular mixtures. (ii) The State Governments should notify minimum standards/facilities for establishment of granular mixing units and henceforth the State Government may renew the existing certificate of manufacturer for production of only granular mixtures.” 3. However, the existing physical mixtures of operation may be given two years time to switch over to the granular mixtures. (ii) The State Governments should notify minimum standards/facilities for establishment of granular mixing units and henceforth the State Government may renew the existing certificate of manufacturer for production of only granular mixtures.” 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these petitions vehemently submitted that the action of Respondent No. 1 is arbitrary. The reason for which the order is branded ‘arbitrary’ is that Respondent No. 1 had, later on, permitted the Co-operative Societies’ to continue to have ‘mixtures of fertilizers’ by physical operation’, whereas the petitioners are not. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that Respondent No. 1 treats the Co-operative societies differently then the petitioners. The submission of the learned Counsel is not only devoid of any merit but is also misconceived. A question of ‘arbitrariness’, arises only when persons belonging to the same class are treated differently and not when persons belonging to two classes are treated differently. No detailed reasoning is required to substantiate this point. The ‘Co-operative Societies’ by themselves form a different class than that of the petitioners, who are admittedly not the ‘Co-operative units’. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that persons, like the petitioners, had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by filing Writ Petition No. 18391 of 2003 in which Miscellaneous Petition No. 22989/2003 was filed. Therein the Madras High Court granted the ‘interim stay’ and ‘notice’, vide order dated 03.07.2003. The order passed in WPMP No. 22989 of 2003 is produced at Annexure-B, it contains only three words “Interim Stay. Notice”. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners had not produced any other material like memo of W.P. (Writ Petition) or WPMP (Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition). No more information as to what happened after order dated 03.07.2003 is produced. On the date of first hearing as the learned Advocate for the petitioners had not produced a copy of the petition. To enable the learned Advocate for the petitioners to produce some material, the matter was adjourned. Today, the learned Advocate produced a copy of the petition. No more information as to what happened after order dated 03.07.2003 is produced. On the date of first hearing as the learned Advocate for the petitioners had not produced a copy of the petition. To enable the learned Advocate for the petitioners to produce some material, the matter was adjourned. Today, the learned Advocate produced a copy of the petition. Assuming for the sake of argument that all those grounds, which are available to the petitioners in the petitions filed before Madras High Court, are available to the petitioners here before this Court, then also, the petitioners before this Court are not entitled to the same treatment same relief, because the petitioners before the Madras High Court approached the Madras High Court in the year 2000 by filing Writ Petition No. 18391 of 2000 while here the petition is filed in the year 2006. Later on, a miscellaneous petition No. 22989 of 2003 was filed before the Madras High Court, in which the Court was pleased to grant ‘interim stay and notice’. To that also, three years’ time has elapsed. The petitioners before this Court, accept saying that they had approached the Central Government by various representations and at the relevant time, they were orally assured by the authorities that the notification/order is issued for the entire nation. There are all the possibilities that some person in some part of the country will approach same High Court. Once the High Court is so approached, the High Court is bound to grant stay and once the stay is granted by any High Court, this notification/order will not be implemented in the entire country. 6. It is equally important to note that order dated 22.07.2002, two years’ period was prescribed in Sub-paragraph (i) of Para 4, that period expired in 2004. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the said period was extended for further two years. That too has expired on 22.07.2006. It is only thereafter as a last resort the petitioners have chosen to approach this Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The filing of petition is not only a ‘delayed action’ on the part of the petitioners but a glaring example of criminal negligence for ones’ own right. It is only thereafter as a last resort the petitioners have chosen to approach this Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The filing of petition is not only a ‘delayed action’ on the part of the petitioners but a glaring example of criminal negligence for ones’ own right. After waiting for long four years, this Court is approached only by filing a petition on 18.07.2006, hence all these petitioner deserve and are accordingly rejected on the ground of unpardonable delay and laches. 7. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that, by virtue of the stay order granted by the Madras High Court, manufacturing unit of that State will continue to manufacture. As against that, the petitioners manufacturing units in the State of Gujarat will not be able to manufacture. The resultant affect will be that the goods/fertilisers manufactured in that State will be brought and sold in Gujarat because there is no prohibition on selling of the ‘mixtures of fertiliser’. He submitted that there is yet another aspect, which is required to be considered by this Court. He submitted that in every petition, different unit is the petitioner and these units have number of employees who in turn have so many dependents. All these details are set out at Para 76. He submitted that all these employees will be rendered jobless and in turn their families will starve for no fault on their part. The argument though sound to be attractive, is not convincing because it is the petitioners who have to blame themselves for such a gross delay and the negligence which they have caused in approaching the Court. The order under challenge was issued in the year 2002. In fact, after having made a representation, after waiting for some reasonable time, the petitioners ought to have approached the Court. The only explanation given by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that the petitioners were orally assured that the order is not going to be implemented. This is no ground on which the delay caused can be condoned. 8. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that, on merits, Respondent No. 1 Central Government has no power to issue such order. This is no ground on which the delay caused can be condoned. 8. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that, on merits, Respondent No. 1 Central Government has no power to issue such order. In this regard, he invited attention of the Court to Sub-clause (n) of Clause 2 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred as “Control Order” for brevity), which defines ‘mixtures of fertilisers’. The learned Advocate also referred to various clauses, like Clause 12, which deals with restriction on preparation of mixtures of fertilisers, Clause 13 provides for standards of mixtures of fertilisers, Clause 14 provides for application for certificate of manufacture/import of mixtures of fertilisers, and Clause 15 provides for grant or refusal of certificate of manufacture, import for preparation of mixtures of fertilisers. Last but not the least, the learned Advocate for the petitioners also referred to Clause 16, which provides for conditions for grant of certificate of manufacture, import in respect of special mixture of fertilisers and period of validity of such certificate. The attempt on the part of the learned Advocate for the petitioners was to convince this Court showing that it is the State Government who is empowered to issue such order and not the Central Government. 9. Taking these submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners on their face value, the State Government has not passed any order so far. Even on that ground, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The ground on which the petitioners did not approach this Court when the order was passed is very much available to the petitions even to-day. As per the say of the petitioners, they were assured by the authorities when they approached them, that, the moment any High Court passes an order of stay, the impugned order will not be implemented. The petitioners shall now approach the authority and point out the ‘stay order’ passed by the Madras High Court. The petitioners must feel contended as they did in 2002 and need not worry because the order is not going to be implemented as promised to them by the authorities. 10. This Court finds no merit/substance in these petitions hence they are dismissed. Besides on the ground of delay with which the petitioners have approached this Court, the petitions are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. This Court finds no merit/substance in these petitions hence they are dismissed. Besides on the ground of delay with which the petitioners have approached this Court, the petitions are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed with no order as to costs. * * * * *