JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. : The writ petitioner calls in question the order/notification dated 1.4.2005 as in Annexure-8 fixing the price for sale of Chrome Ore in the domestic market in respect of Chrome Ore of grade 40-42% at Rs.3571/- as illegal., arbitrary and mala fide. Prayer is made for quashing the notification and for a direction to continue the supply as per rate and sale policy prevailing prior to 1.2.2005 (Annexure-3). 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner-M/s. Orissa Chrome Export and Mining Company Limited is that it is a small scale joint venture project with Industrial Promotion and Investment Company Limited (IPICOL), a Government of Orissa Undertaking, for processing of low grade unsaleable Chrome Ore in its Chrome Ore Beneficiation Plant (COBP) to produce the saleable Chrome Ore. The petitioner’s plant was installed on the assurance of the Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, which was reiterated in their letter dated 26.4.1999 to its joint venture partner IPICOL for supply of Chrome Ore of medium and high grades required for the processing unit up to 50,000 MT per annum. The petitioner-company made request to the opposite party-Corporation to supply the Chrome Ore in terms of their commitment, but the opposite party-Corporation did not respond to such request. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of IPICOL and the Director of Industries, Government of Orissa also made correspondences for supply of Ore to the petitioner-unit for commencement of production as the plant after installation was lying idle. The writ petitioner having failed to get the supply of the Ore as per the commitment of the opposite party, filed wit petition W.P.(C) No.8185 of 2003. The High Court, in its order dated 29.10.2003, directed the Managing Director of Orissa Mining Corporation (hereinafter called “the OMC”) to commence supply of 50,000 MT per annum of medium and high grade Chrome Ore to the petitioner forthwith in terms of the letter dated 20.4.2003. The opposite party after commencement of supply of Chrome Ore up to 49735.810 MTs between December, 2003 and November, 2004 suddenly stopped supply to the petitioner in spite of receipt of advance payment on the plea of non-availability of the stock. The petitioner then filed Contempt Petition No.692 of 2004. On consideration of the reply to the show-cause, this Court found him guilty of disobedience of order dated 29.10.2003. The petitioner then filed Contempt Petition No.692 of 2004. On consideration of the reply to the show-cause, this Court found him guilty of disobedience of order dated 29.10.2003. However, the Managing Director of the Corpora¬tion having tendered unconditional apology and commenced supply of materials to the petitioner, the Court dropped the proceeding by order dated 18.4.2005. 3. The petitioner alleges that just after the contempt matter was dropped by order dated 18.4.2005, the Managing Direc¬tor, Orissa Mining Corporation, with a view to take revenue on the petitioner constituted a Sales Committee to raise the sale price and the sale price was abnormally hiked to Rs.3571.00 per M.T. The price was purportedly fixed on prorata basis deriving it from a tender made for Chrome Ore of different grades required by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Managing Direc¬tor with a view to close down the petitioner’s unit raised the price so that the finished product will not find a market in the higher price. Reference has been made to the tender call notice vide Annexure-1 to show that no tender/bid was invited for 40-42% grade of Chrome Ore but was in respect of Chrome Ore of other sizes. It is further averred that the Board of Directors of Orissa Mining Corporation (hereinafter called “the Board”), in their 350th meeting took a decision to determine the Chrome Ore sales price on quarterly basis through price setting tender. The Board decided that fixation of price by tender will not be appli¬cable to traders, beneficiation units, processing units and Chromite lessees. The petitioner thus avers that the Board had never resolved to fix the price by tender in respect of 40-42% grade of Chrome ‘Ore required by the petitioner for its benefi¬ciation plant. But the Managing Director, in his attempt to harass the petitioner contrary to the decision of the Board, adopted a formula to determine the price of 40-42% Grade of Chrome Ore required by the petitioner on prorata basis through a sales committee. It is claimed that the petitioner was receiving 40-42% grade of Chrome Ore at the rate of Rs.1111.00 per M.T. less by 38% discount on account of slab, discount on sale price by 27% and moisture content discount of 8%. In addition, for advance payment, a discount of 3% was available. The petitioner was practically paying less than Rs.800.00 per M.T. as per the prevailing practice. In addition, for advance payment, a discount of 3% was available. The petitioner was practically paying less than Rs.800.00 per M.T. as per the prevailing practice. The petitioner alleges that the estimated cost in terms of Annexure-O at Rs.8451.00 per M.T. will be the effective cost for beneficiated Ore recovered from 40-42% grade when raw materials is purchased at Rs.3571.00 per M.T. as deter¬mined by the Committee whereas the O.M.C. has published the sale price of the 48-50% grade ore at Rs.4915.00 per M.T. as in Annex¬ure-A. If the price of 40-42% grade Ore is fixed at Rs.2236.00 per M.T., the effective price of beneficiated 48-50% grade Ore becomes Rs.5907.00 whereas the sale price of the same grade published by the opposite party-Corporation is at Rs.3078.00 per M.T. Similarly if the petitioner will purchase 40-42% grade of Chrome Ore at Rs.3014.00, the effective cost for beneficiated 48-50% grade of grade Ore shall be Rs.7333.00 as compared to Rs.444.00 for original 48-50% grade of Chrome Ore sold by OMC. However, subsequently the OMC reduced the sale price of 40-42% Grade Ore to Rs.2236.00 in terms of the decision of the Price Sales Committee held on 25.10.2005 as in Annexures-S series and subsequent meeting on 12.12.2005 without inviting any tender for the purpose. Contention is raised that in order to facilitate the requirement of M/s. Jindal Steel and the difficulties faced by it, the OMC without inviting tender reduced the price of 50-52% Grade Chrome Ore from Rs.5120.00 to Rs.3106.00 and in compelling circumstance, price of 40-42% Grade Chrome Ore was reduced from Rs.3571.00 to Rs.2236.00 per MT. It is alleged that fixation was made by the Committee consisting of the Chairman, OMC Limited, three Directors, Managing Director and two others officers of the OMC. The Board Committee on Sales Policy of Price Fixation Com¬mittee is altogether different from the Sales Committee illegally constituted by the Managing Director for determining the price on prorata basis which consists of the Managing Director and three officers of the OMC subordinate to him. Submission is made that the decision taken by the Sales Committee constituted by the Managing Director is contrary to the decision of the Board and the guide¬lines framed. Submission is made that the decision taken by the Sales Committee constituted by the Managing Director is contrary to the decision of the Board and the guide¬lines framed. The Board had never authorized the fixation of price of 40-42% Grade of Chrome Ore by any tender process by the Sales Committee, inasmuch as the petitioner was requiring 40-42% Grade Chrome Ore for beneficiation purpose which was made an exception by the Board. The petitioner thus claims that the resolution of the Sales Committee on 20.4.2005 in Annexures- A & B has been deliberately made with the mala fide intention of har¬assing the petitioner since it had filed a contempt petition against the Managing Director. The petitioner has made special reference to the prevailing price which was adopted by the OMC in Annexure-12 and the information given to the Governor in respect of the agreement between OMC and Vedanta Alumina Limited. It stated that taking into account the raising cost + royalty + about 10% profit, the prevailing price for sale price of Bauxite Ore to M/s. Vedanta Alumina Limited was fixed. The petitioner alleges hostile dis¬crimination and avers that since the company is similarly situat¬ed and is a joint venture project with the IPICOL having along term contract to supply 40-42% Grade Chrome Ore, it should have been treated similarly adopting the similar procedure in arriving at the sale price. The petitioner has given analysis of cost factor taking supply rate of same grade of Chrome Ore to the COBP Plant of the OMC, and it is stated that feeding cost has been calculated at Rs.835.55 and such calculation has been arrived at taking into consideration in the raising cost of Rs.593.08 + head office overhead 90.51 + depreciation 1.55 + GM office overhead 72.71 + prospecting 77.71, which comes to Rs.835.55 and claims that it is entitled at least to the same benefit. Hence the writ petition for quashing the fixation of price in Annexure-8. 4. The opposite party has filed a counter affidavit deny¬ing the allegations and assertions made in the writ petition. It is sated that pursuant to the direction dated 29.10.2003 to commence supply forthwith as per the assurance of the OMC in letter dated 26.4.1999; the OMC started supplying the Ore. The buyer has to accept the prevailing price as finalized by the seller from time to time. It is sated that pursuant to the direction dated 29.10.2003 to commence supply forthwith as per the assurance of the OMC in letter dated 26.4.1999; the OMC started supplying the Ore. The buyer has to accept the prevailing price as finalized by the seller from time to time. The petitioner-farm has been all along paying the price fixed by the OMC Limited till March, 2005. The OMC in order to arrive at the right pricing, floats Price Setting Tender (PST) for sale of minerals like Chrome Ore. The price of different grades of Chrome Ore was fixed in the meeting held on 20.4.2005 at Annexure-A & B. The OMC fixed the price of Chrome Ore basing on the highest price offered for all grades and varie¬ties of Chrome Ore in the domestic market during April-June, 2005 quarter. The price enhancement and fixation of rate for sale of all sizes of Chrome Ore has been done after taking into consid¬eration the result of the Price Setting Tender. Allegation of mala fide has been denied. The memorandum to the 350th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the OMC and the copy of Chrome Ore Sale Policy dated 1.4.2005 has been annexed as Annexure-E. The said price was approved by the Board in item-6 (B) of Annexure-K. The OMC in their 353rd" Board Meeting held on 14.12.2005 approved for sale of 40-42% Grade of Chrome Ore at the rate of Rs.2236/MT with effect from 21.12.2005 and the petitioner is supplied 40-42% Grade of Chrome Ore at the rate of Rs.2236/MT as per order dated 4.1.2006. It has been reiterated that the OMC fixes the price of minerals like iron Ore, manganese Ore, and Chrome Ore through Price Setting Tender or consultative process. Up to 31.3.2005, the OMC was fixing the price of Chrome Ore by consultative pro¬cess whereas price of other minerals was fixed through Price Setting Tender. In the meeting held on 30.3.2005, it was decided to fix the price of Chrome Ore through Price Setting Tender like iron and manganese. The price of Chrome Ore from 1.4.2005 was fixed based on the result of price Setting Tender. In the Price Setting Tender, the old Chrome Ore customers had quoted a low price by making cartel while new customers had quoted market price. During that period the Ferro Chrome was a marketed at higher price. The price of Chrome Ore from 1.4.2005 was fixed based on the result of price Setting Tender. In the Price Setting Tender, the old Chrome Ore customers had quoted a low price by making cartel while new customers had quoted market price. During that period the Ferro Chrome was a marketed at higher price. Subsequently, the price of Ferro Chrome was re¬duced. The customers had approached the Corporation for reduction of the price. The Board of Directors had discussed with the representatives of the Ferro Chrome units and detailed costing including Ferro Chrome (Finished Product) price and cost of production including raw materials cost of these units were calculated. Based on input of Ferro Chrome Units, the price of Ferro Chrome Ore was fixed with effect from 21.12.2005 in pur¬suance of the Board decision dated 14.12.2005. During April-June, 2006 quarter, price of Ferro Chrome was obtained from ASP, Durga¬pur, the price revision for Chrome Ore was made considering the variation in Ferro Chrome price received form the ASP, Durgapur as advised by the OMC Board. The petitioner’s allegation that OMC has only enhanced rate of 40-42% grade of CR2O3 of Chrome Ore is not correct and the enhancement has also been made in price for all grades and sizes of Chrome Ore. With regard to the allegation that price fixation in case of Vedanta Alumina Limited has been made in a different way and that since the price was to be re¬duced in case of Vedanta Alumina, consequential reduction was made in case of others including the petitioner. The opposite party has stated that there is no memorandum or resolution passed by the Board of Director or any other documents for fixation of price for supply of Ore to Vedanta Alumina inasmuch as the agree¬ment has not yet been implemented. It is stated that the price has been enhanced taking into consideration the result of the Price Setting Tender floated by the OMC Limited pursuant to the decision of its Board of Directors. 5. The memorandum to the 350th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the OMC indicates that the Chrome Ore Sale Policy for 2005-06 was to be finalized before 1st of April, 2005 because of increased demand of Chrome Ore in the domestic market. 5. The memorandum to the 350th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the OMC indicates that the Chrome Ore Sale Policy for 2005-06 was to be finalized before 1st of April, 2005 because of increased demand of Chrome Ore in the domestic market. It also indicates that in the past price of Chrome Ore (Domestic) was decided through a consultative process in view of complexity in the market place. In the meanwhile, as per the decision taken in a meeting chaired by the Principal Secretary to Government, Steel and Mines, sale of Chrome Ore to new outside State Ferro Chrome units has been restricted and supply to old units have been frozen to the previous lifting. The memorandum further indicates that the Chrome Ore sale price decided through consultative process may be lower than the market rate since it is limited to the existing customers only but in order to enable participation of other end users to obtain market determined rate Price Setting Tender Process was felt necessary. It was decided that prices will be decided on quarterly basis through Price Setting Tender (PST) for intermediary grades where production is high. For the rest of grades, derivative price maintaining suitable price difference will be fixed. Ferro Chrome, Chemical and Refractory units both inside and outside the State will be eligible to par¬ticipate in the PST and technically qualified participants in the tender will be allowed to lift at H-1 price subject to capac¬ity of the plant being more than the offered quantity. However, the Board decided that this principle will not be applicable for traders, beneficiation units, processing units and Chromite less¬ees. Opposite party, in its advertisement dated 4.4.2005, invited sealed quotations for purchase of different grades of friable Chrome Ores of the grades 42-44%, 44-46%, 48-50%, 52-54% and for 54% Cr2O3 and fixed the earnest money deposits. The tender was admittedly not for the grade 40-42% Cr2O3 . In the memorandum, regarding determination of price of Chrome Ore, the fixation of price by tender processing was not applicable or traders, benefi¬ciation units and Chromite lessees. It has so been admitted that as per Board’s Approved Sales Policy of Chrome Ore, the OMC is not supplying Chrome Ores to any other beneficiation units and, therefore, in the eligibility criteria of the tender call notice, it was clearly stated that the tender is not applicable for beneficiation units. It has so been admitted that as per Board’s Approved Sales Policy of Chrome Ore, the OMC is not supplying Chrome Ores to any other beneficiation units and, therefore, in the eligibility criteria of the tender call notice, it was clearly stated that the tender is not applicable for beneficiation units. However, the opposite party has taken a stand that the price for 40-42% Grade of Chrome Ore has been fixed on prorata basis deduced from the rates quoted for other grades of Ore. It is important to note that while inviting ten¬ders, the opposite party had not asked for quoting the rate of the said grade of Ore. The tender call notices stipulated several conditions for the tenderers to comply including payment of earnest money deposits. However, the Sales Committee considers the quotations and determined H-1 bid for different grades in the meeting held on 20.4.2005. Thus the determination of the price for 40-42% grade of Chrome Ore, by the Sales Committee dated 20.4.2005 was contrary to the decision of the Board and as such without jurisdiction. 6. It is thus clear that the Board of Directors never resolved in any of its meeting for fixing the price by tender for 40-42% grade of Chrome for which the petitioner is the sole buyer for its beneficiation plant. The Sales Committee in its meeting held on 20.4.2005 while deciding the tender for other grades of Chrome Ore, fixed price of 40-42% grade on prorata basis which obviously is not in accordance with the decision in the 350th Board’s Meeting. According to the petitioner, this attempt has been made on the initiative of the Managing Director for haras¬sing the petitioner since the petitioner had moved a Contempt Petition where the Managing Director was found guilty having not complied with the direction of the High Court in supplying the required material. It appears from the records that the petition¬er was receiving Chrome Ore at the rate of Rs.1111 per M.T. from which 38% discount was given on account of slab, discount on sale price by 27% and Moisture content discount of 8%. In addition, in case of payment in advance by demand draft, a discount of 3% was available. It appears from the records that the petition¬er was receiving Chrome Ore at the rate of Rs.1111 per M.T. from which 38% discount was given on account of slab, discount on sale price by 27% and Moisture content discount of 8%. In addition, in case of payment in advance by demand draft, a discount of 3% was available. The petitioner claims that practically it was getting the Chrome Ore at Rs.800/- per M.T. and was able to achieve final production cost after beneficiation of 40-42% grade of Chrome Ore matching to the prevailing sale price of O.M.C.’s 48-50% grade of Chrome Ore. An estimate has been filed as Annexure-O which indi¬cates that Rs.8451 per MT will be the effective cost for benefi¬ciated Ore recovered from 40-42% grade Ore when the raw material is purchased at Rs.3571 per M.T. The O.M.C. published the sale price of 48-50% grade at Rs.4915 per M.T. and as such even if the price of 40-42% grade is fixed at Rs.2236 per M.T., the effective price of beneficiated 48-50% grade Ore becomes Rs.5907/-. The sale price in the same grade as published by the Opp.Party is Rs.3078/- per M.T. A detail calculation has been given by the petitioner. However after April, 2005 the O.M.C. reduced the sale price of 40-42% grade Ore to Rs.2236/- by the decision of the Boards Price Fixation Committee dated 25.10.2005 (Annexure-S series) and subsequent meeting on 12.12.2005 without inviting any tender for the purpose. According to the petitioner the Committee had its sitting to consider the requirement of M/s. Jindal Steel and the difficulties of Jindal was discussed as they were incur¬ring loss if they were to buy at the rate fixed by the O.M.C. and the price of 50-52% grade Chrome has been reduced from Rs.5120 to Rs.3106 and in such compelling circumstances 40-42% grade Chrome Ore was reduced from Rs.3571.00 to Rs.2236.00. The price was fixed by a Committee consisting of Chairman of the O.M.C., three Directors, Managing Director and two other Officers of the O.M.C. It has been alleged by the writ petitioner that the Board Commit¬tee on Chrome Ore Sales Policy Price fixation is altogether different than the Sales Committee constituted by the Managing Director with three Officers of the O.M.C. subordinate to him and accordingly, the decision of the Sale Committee dated 20.4.2005 is contrary to the Board’ directive. In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party to the additional affidavit of the petitioner, the opposite party has admitted that the price of minerals are fixed either by consultative process or through Price Setting Tender whichever means are needed to achieve the best price for O.M.C. Limited. In the meeting held on 30.10.2005, the Board of Directors had decided to fix the price through the Price Setting Tender like other minerals with effect from 1.4.2005. In respect of 40-42% grade Chrome Ore, the price was fixed by calculating a prorata from the price of 42-44% grade Chrome Ore and fixation of price on prorata calculation is one of the normal practices for minerals. However, it must be noted that the Board in its 350th meeting while deciding to fix the price through Price Setting Tender had excluded traders, beneficiation units, processing units and Chromite lessees from its purview. All the same, there cannot be any dispute that the price in respect of 40-42% grade of Chrome Ore has to be fixed either by consultative process or through the Price Setting Tender. Fixa¬tion of the price in respect of 40-42% grade Chrome Ore by the Committee, therefore, is not in consonance with the decision of the board nor through the Price Setting Tender, as in the case of other grades of Chrome Ore and, therefore, is illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. Shri Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party-Corporation, submitted that fixation of price by OMC for Chrome Ore is an administrative action and the opposite party company, though a Government Company, inter alia, carries on sale of Chrome Ore on the basis of business principle and, therefore, the discretion with regard to fixation of price is wholly with OMC. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of the apex Court in Duncan Industries Ltd. and another v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 129 in support of his contention and further submitted that the fixation can be interfered only on the ground of mala fide or extreme arbitrariness. A reference has also been made to the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 . 8. A reference has also been made to the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 . 8. In Duncan Industries case the apex Court reiterated the accepted position that Article 14 does not require the Court to examine the intricacies of an economic scheme or pricing policy for its merits or its correctness for that is in the domain of the Executive or Legislative branches of the Government. In the matters of administrative discretion, it is not open for the Court to interfere in minute details, except on grounds of mala fides or extreme arbitrariness. Interference should only be within a very narrow limits, such as, where there is a clear violation of the statute or a constitutional provision, or ex¬treme arbitrariness in the Wednesbury sense. In Tata Cellular case, the apex Court laid down the principles as to when the Court should interfere in the matter. It has been held therein that the Court should be concerned as to whether the decision making authority exceeded its power, (2) committed any error of law, (3) committed the breach of the rules of natural justice, (4) reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached or (5) abused its power. The extent of duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. 9. There can be no dispute over the proposition. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, has relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, AIR 1999 SC 2468 to contend that if State’s action is not based on any rational or relevant principle and is therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as also rule of administrative law which inhibits arbitrary action by the State, the same can be interfered with. The conspectus of the decision, therefore, is that if the decision making process is arbitrary or unreasonable and is the out come of mala fide or on any extrane¬ous consideration, the Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 can certainly step in and examine as to whether the decision is vitiated for non-compliance of any of the parameters laid down by the apex Court, as above. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party has emphasized on the condition and observation of this Court with regard to the prevailing price while directing supply of the Ore. It is submit¬ted that the court having directed that the petitioner would be liable to pay the prevailing price, the price determined by the Committee is binding on the petitioner. In any event the prevail¬ing price has to be determined by the seller and in the present case, the opposite party, by adopting an appropriate device or guidelines formulated for the same. The prevailing price can thus be obtained through the Price Setting Tender and there can be no dispute about it. For obtaining price through the Price Setting Tender, the mineral sought to be sold has to be advertised for sale and then offers invited from prospective buyers to obtain the price. Prevailing price also was obtained when the Board Committee on Chrome Ore sale price held on 12.12.2005 in Annex¬ure-5 series took note of the rising cost, royalty, profit at the prevailing price for sale and/or by invitation of tenders and so calculated to arrive at the prevailing price. In that view of the matter, the decision of the Committee on Fixation of Sale Price dated 20.4.2005 in respect of 40-42% grade Chrome Ore determining the price at Rs.3571/- per M.T. is quashed. The Board and its Committee on Chrome Ore Sale Price shall work out and determine the sale price of 40-42% grade Chrome Ore, supplied to the petitioner, either by Consultative Process or through Price Setting Tender keeping in view of the determination made in respect of others in their meetings dated 25.10.2005 and 12.12.2005 (Annexure-5 series) and the ale price determined for sale of Chrome Ore in the domestic market of the Corporation. While fixing the price the Board shall also keep in view the prevailing price as adopted by the OMC and the State Government in case of Vendanta Alumina Limited and others. Howe¬ver till such time, the price is redetermined, the price and terms and conditions of Sale Policy shall be applicable to the supplies of Ore made to the petitioner by the OMC in terms of order dated 4.1.2006 in Misc. Case No.10507 of 2005 and order dated 9.5.2006 in Misc. Case No.5515 of 2006. Howe¬ver till such time, the price is redetermined, the price and terms and conditions of Sale Policy shall be applicable to the supplies of Ore made to the petitioner by the OMC in terms of order dated 4.1.2006 in Misc. Case No.10507 of 2005 and order dated 9.5.2006 in Misc. Case No.5515 of 2006. Any quantity of Chrome Ore remaining unsupplied during the pendency of this writ petition to which the petitioner is/was entitled to, shall be made available to it on requisition and on the petitioner comply¬ing with the formalities and making payment as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the order. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. R. N. BISWAL, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.