Judgment : By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage. 2. Thechallenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the first respondent in Government Order in G.O. (2D) No. 26, Industries (MME-1) Department dated 29. 2009 for the supply of waster materials generated from the quarry in S.F. No. 297/5 (Pokishamalai), Keezhavalavu village to the village Self Help Groups with a prayer to quash and consequently, direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to continue to follow the practice of supplying waster stones generated from S.F. No. 297/5 (Pokishamalai), Keezhavalavu village to the workers as per the list maintained by the third respondent. 1. The case of the petitioner union is that about 1000 workers in Keezhavalavu and Keezhaiyur villages in Melur Taluk are solely depending on their avocation of stone works for several years and from 1990 onwards, the second respondent had commenced mining operation in Keezhavalavu and Keezhaiyur villages in Melur Taluk. After several agitations, the respondents 1 to 6 accepted the claim of the workers and consequently an agreement was entered into between the petitioner union and the respondents 1 to 6 on 6. 1991 and as per the said agreement, the second respondent agreed to supply the waste stone generated from its quarrying operations to the workers. The list of the workers was given to the third respondent and as per the list, the workers have been supplied with the waster stones and by using the said supply of waste stones, the workers converted the same into broken stones, jellys and they are at liberty to sell it to anybody and thereby they are earning their Income for their livelihood. 3. 2. Another agreement dated 2. 1993 similar to the agreement dated 6. 1991 was entered into, by which, the respondents 2 to 4 agreed to supply the waste stones to the workers from the quarry operations done in Keezhaiyur in S.F. No. 398/1 and in Keezhavalavu in S.F. Nos. 272/2 and 3 and also in S.F. No. 297/5 (Pokishamalai). The dispute is in respect of the survey No. S.F. No. 297/5 (Pokishamalai). 3. 3. During the year 2007, the third respondent stopped the supply of waste stones to the works from S.F.No.297/5 (Pokishamalai) which resulted in the agitation of the petitioner union. 272/2 and 3 and also in S.F. No. 297/5 (Pokishamalai). The dispute is in respect of the survey No. S.F. No. 297/5 (Pokishamalai). 3. 3. During the year 2007, the third respondent stopped the supply of waste stones to the works from S.F.No.297/5 (Pokishamalai) which resulted in the agitation of the petitioner union. A meeting of Peace Committee was conducted on 210. 2007 and the sixth respondent submitted a report dated 210. 2007 to the fourth respondent narrating the practice of supplying waste stones to the workers and recommended that the same practice should be continued. Again on 17. 2008, another peace committee meeting was conducted and it was decided that the waste stones shall be supplied to the petitioner union members by getting permission from the Government. 3. 4. While that being the position, the respondents 2 to 4 stopped the supply of waste stones to the workers from S.F.No.297/5 (Pokishamalai) from August 2009 onwards which affected their livelihood. Now the petitioner came to know that the first respondent passed the impugned Government Order deciding to supply the waste stones from S.F.No.297/5 (Pokishamalai) to the seventh respondent, which is Self Help Group. The Impugned order was passed without hearing the quarry workers and considering their request and without assigning any reasons and as such, the petitioner union has been constrained to approach this Court with the above said prayer. 4.1. The fifth respondent by filing a counter, inter alia, denied the averments contained in the affidavit of the petitioner union. It is stated that Keezhaiyur and Keezhavalavu villages, located around 12 kilometers distance from Melur, have gained international recognition from the year 1990 due to the prevalence of precious multi coloured and white granite stones which developed into major foreign exchange earner. The total population in respect of the said villages are 5,141 and 5,686 with households numbering 1,258 and 1,328 respectively and the entire villagers are depending on the granite industry for their livelihood. 2. The Government in G.O. Ms. No.421 Industries (MMB-II) Department, dated 210. 1991 granted lease to Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TAMIN”) to quarry granite stones in an extent of 7.07.07 hecs. of lands in Survey No. S.F. No. 398/1 and 3 of Keezhaiyur village and an extent of 23. 5 hecs. in S.F. No. 272/2 and 0.83.5 hecs. No.421 Industries (MMB-II) Department, dated 210. 1991 granted lease to Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TAMIN”) to quarry granite stones in an extent of 7.07.07 hecs. of lands in Survey No. S.F. No. 398/1 and 3 of Keezhaiyur village and an extent of 23. 5 hecs. in S.F. No. 272/2 and 0.83.5 hecs. of lands in S.F. No. 272/3 of Keezhavalavu village in order to provide sustenance to the workers for their livelihood, an informal agreement was reached on 6. 1991 on certain terms. 3. Accordingly, names of 261 workers were given by the villagers and from the year 1991, waste stones are being supplied to the workers by TAMIN in Survey No.S.F.No.398/1 in Keezhaiyur village and 272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu village. At no point of time, the stone wastes in an extend of 82. 0 hects. of lands in Survey No.S.F.No.297/5 (Pokkishamalai) covered by the lease granted to TAMIN under G.O.Ms.No.68 Industries (MME 1) Department dated 12. 1993 were agreed to be supplied to the workers, residing in Keezhaiyur and Keezhavalavu villages. In respect of the supply of wasters from Survey No.S.F.No.398/1 of Keezhaiyur and S.F.Nos.272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu, the TAMIN Supplied the wastes free of cost to the workers and only seigniorage fee is collected towards transportation of waste stones. 4. 4 The seventh respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5185 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 26. 2009 directed the fifth respondent to consider their request and pass orders within a period of four weeks and the Collector recommended to the Government for appropriate orders. Consequently, the impugned Government Order was passed by the Government for the supply of granite wastes to nine Self Help Groups consisting about 165 members, who are found below the poverty line, with a view to improve their standard of living. The fifty respondent as well as the Commissioner of Geology and Mining permitted the TAMIN to supply wastes generated from the quarry in S.F.No.297/5 in Keezhavalavu village on collection of seigniorage fee by relaxing the Rule 22(2) of Granite Conservation and Development rules, 1999. The TAMIN supplied waste stones to the members of the petitioner union in S.F.No.398/1 of Keezhaiyur and S.F.Nos. 272/2 and 3 and so far, the supply is not diverted to any other agency. The TAMIN supplied waste stones to the members of the petitioner union in S.F.No.398/1 of Keezhaiyur and S.F.Nos. 272/2 and 3 and so far, the supply is not diverted to any other agency. The impugned Government Order is only in respect of S.F.No.297/5 (Pokkisharnalai) of Keezhavalavu village, where the Government ordered TAMIN to supply waste stones to Self Help Groups, whose members numbering 165, incidentally are the local inhabitants of the above said villages. 4. 5. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner union does not represent the entire working force in the said village and therefore, the impugned order is perfectly legal and in accordance with the accepted principles of enquiry, justice and fair play. 5. The seventh respondent has also filed a counter stating that the impugned order was passed not only in respect of the seventh respondent/Self Help Group alone, but also in favour of the other Self Help Groups at Keezhavalavu village numbering 9 consisting of 165 members. It is submitted that most of the members are making out their livelihood by stone cutting only and they are already members in the petitioner union also. It is stated that similar permits were issued to Self Help Groups at Vellothumalai in Keezhavalavu panchayat and at Thogalmalai panchayat in Trichy District. It is further stated that as no action taken on their representation dated 24. 2009, the seventh respondent approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5185 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 26. 2009 directed the fifth respondent to consider and pass orders on their representation dated 24. 2009 within a period of four weeks. It is also stated that the impugned Government Order does not deprive the income and employment to the unemployed youth and women. 6. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder to the counter filed by the fifth respondent in the rejoinder, the petitioner denied the averment contained in the counter that waste stone generated from quarry in survey No. 297/5 never supplied to the members of the petitioner union or other workers. It is stated that even the waste stones generated from S.F. No. 297/5 were supplied to the members of the petitioner union. It is further denied that the members of the petitioner union were migrated from other places to Melur. It is stated that even the waste stones generated from S.F. No. 297/5 were supplied to the members of the petitioner union. It is further denied that the members of the petitioner union were migrated from other places to Melur. It is also stated that out of 600 workers about 200 workers are depending on the supply of waster stone generated from S.F. No. 297/5 (Pokishamalai). It is stated that the impugned Government Order makes discrimination among the villagers by saying one group of them belong to Self Help Group. It is also stated that the stone workers come as a separate class and as such, they deserve special treatment from the government such as free supply of waste stone, which is given to them from 1991 onwards. 7. Mr. T. Lajapathiroy, learned counsel for the petitioner made interesting and impressive submissions as hereunder: .(1) The workers of the petitioner union have been supplied with the waste stone generated from all the quarries in respect of two villages, viz., Keezhaiyur and Keezhavalavu, comprising four Survey Numbers, viz., S.F. No. 398/1 of Keezhaiyur and in S.F. Nos. 272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu and also in F.F. No. 297/5 which is called Pokishamalai right from the year 1991. .(2) Even in respect of the disputed Survey No. S.F. No. 297/5, the waste stones generated from the said Survey Number were supplied to the members of the petitioner union upto August 2009 and thereafter, it was stopped. .(3) The petitioner union is not only seeking the relief of supply of the waste stone to the workers affiliated to the petitioner union alone but also they are fighting for the cause of all the workers; .(4) The Tahsildar has also in his proceedings Na.Ka. No. 14508/07/A2 dated 210. 2007 recommended the claim of the members of the petitioner union for giving supply of waste stones generated from Survey No. 297/5; .(5) As per the Government Orders and even as per the letter of the Government dated 22. 2001, it is stated that in order to solve the problems of the local workers. TAMIN entered into an agreement dated 6. 1991 for the supply of waste stones generated from the quarries from two villages/viz., Keezhavalavu and Keezhaiyur and as such. 2001, it is stated that in order to solve the problems of the local workers. TAMIN entered into an agreement dated 6. 1991 for the supply of waste stones generated from the quarries from two villages/viz., Keezhavalavu and Keezhaiyur and as such. It goes without saying that the Survey Numbers, totaling to 4 come from the said two villages, are already included from the year 1991 and in respect of one Survey No. 297/5, the supply was stopped from August 2009 and thereafter, the impugned order was passed to give supply of waste stone generated from Survey No. 297/5 to the seventh respondent; .(6) In view of the impugned order passed by the Government to provide the granite waste to the seventh respondent headed by a Ex-Panchayat President, the workers were forced to purchase the waste stone from the Self Help Group for the purpose of converting the same into rough stone and jelly, which would create a monopoly in the hands of the Self Help Group; .(7) A list was furnished to the third respondent containing the names of the workers who are involved in the quarrying work and as such, they are entitled for the supply of waste stone generated from the quarries; .(8) Themembers of the petitioner union have not been supplied with waste stone generated from the quarry of S.F. No. 297/5 now and the sudden stoppage of the said supply would affect their legitimate expectation which is now considered to be the part of principles of natural justice as the benefit which was already conferred to the workers has been now taken away by the Government through the impugned order; .(9) In view of stoppage of supply of waste stone generated from S.F. No. 297/5, the workers’ right to livelihood is deprived which would violate Article 21 of the Constitution; .(10) Even the policy decision of the State can be assailed before the Court of law, if the said Executive policy is contrary to the larger public policies and result in infringement of fundamental right. .(11) Rule 22 of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 provides only disposal of nonsalable granite waste and as such, price cannot be fixed for the disposal of the same and providing them to the Self Help Group/the seventh respondent herein; .(12) Different batch of workers are working in different quarries in S.F. Nos.398/1 and 398/3 of Keezhaiyur village and S.F. Nos. 292/2 and 3 of the Keezhavalavu village and only on that ground the Tahsildar submitted his report dated 210. 2007 recommending that supply of waste generated from the Pokkishamalai quarry to the workers working in Keezhavalavu Pokkishamalai quarry to avoid law and order problem. .(13) The impugned order does not disclose the reasons and as such, the same was passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. .(14) The last but not the least submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is in respect of right of the workers of the petitioner union to have an opportunity to be heard before passing the impugned order. If the quasi-Judicial or administrative order results in civil consequences, the principles of natural justice have to be observed. The stoppage of supply of waste stones to the members of the petitioner union and workers, who are getting the same right from 1991, due to passing the impugned order would affect their livelihood and as such results in civil consequences and therefore, the members of the petitioner union ought to have been heard before passing the impugned order. 8. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions: .(1) Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats (2008) 2 SCC 672 ; .(2) S.P. Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & E.T.I.O. (2007) 4 MLJ 723 (SC); .(3) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180 : (1985) 3 SCC 545 ; and .(4) Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 14 SCC 151; 9. Ms. V. Chellammal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 4 to 6 contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order. It is submitted that the members of the petitioner union are enjoying the supply of waste stones generated from other quarries, viz., S.F. No. 3981/ In Keezhaiyur and S.F. Nos. 272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu. It is submitted that the members of the petitioner union are enjoying the supply of waste stones generated from other quarries, viz., S.F. No. 3981/ In Keezhaiyur and S.F. Nos. 272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu. It is submitted that as far as Survey No. 297/5 is concerned, at no point of time, the members of the petitioner union were supplied with the waste stone generated from the said quarry. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that the fifth respondent by filing a counter emphatically denied such claim made by the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General went on further to point out that the Government Order dated 210. 1991 in G.O. Ms. No. 421 Industries (MME II) deals with the grant of permission to TAMIN in respect of quarrying in four S.F. Nos. 398/1, 398/2, 272/2 and 272/3 situated at Keezhaiyur and Keezhavalavu in Melur Taluk and there is no mention in respect of Survey No. 297/5 and as such, it cannot be claimed by the petitioner that they have been supplied with waste granite stone right from the year 1991. It is also pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Government Order dated 12. 1993 in G.O. Ms. No. 68 Industries (MME II) Department indicates that there was no supply of waste stone to the members of the petitioner union from 1991 and the said G.O. relates to the Government giving lease to TAMIN for quarrying white coloured granite in Survey No. 297/5. The proceeding of the Tahsildar in Na.Ka. No. 14508/07/A2 dated 210. 2007 also reveals that at no point of time, waste generated from the Survey No. S.F. No. 297/5 was supplied to the workers affiliated to the petitioner union or other workers. It is submitted that seigniorage fee was meant only for transportation. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the petitioner union has not produced any material to show that the waste stones generated from the quarry situated in Survey No. 297/5 was transported at any point of time for the supply to the members of the petitioner union, and as such, it cannot be contended that the members of the petitioner union or other workers were getting supply of waste stone from the said quarry right from the year 1991. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned order is only an administrative order and as such, it need not contain reasons or the petitioner is entitled for opportunity of to be heard. 1. Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General, contended that the petitioner union has not come forward with clean hands and they have suppressed several material factors. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner union has no right to question the policy decision taken by the Government. It is contended that the Government permitted the second respondent to quarry into the quarries situated in Survey Numbers in S.F. No. 398/1 of Keezhaiyur and S.F. No. 272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu and also in S.F. Nos. 297/5 and as per the recommendation of the revenue authorities including the Collector, the second respondent recommended to the Government to consider the claim of the seventh respondent/Self Help Group. It is pointed out that the seventh respondent has approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No 5185 of 2009 and this Court passed an order dated 26. 2009 directing the fifth respondent herein to consider their representation and pass orders within a stipulated time. The learned Additional Advocate general would submit that the reading of the impugned order would disclose that the second respondent, on consideration of the representation of the Self Help Group, recommended to the Government to give supply of waste stone generated from the quarries situated in Survey No. 297/5 (Pokkishamalai) at Keezhavalavu village. It is contended that the representation of the petitioner union was also considered by the authorities concerned. It is pointed out that in the reference column, the representation given by the petitioner union dated 24. 2007 is mentioned. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is an administrative order which need not contain reasons. It is further contended that the documents mentioned in the reference itself would speak to the effect that the Government have taken into consideration of all claims including the representations, of the petitioner and the seventh respondent and it would reveal the reasons for taking such a decision to supply waste granite to village Self Help Groups. It is further contended that the documents mentioned in the reference itself would speak to the effect that the Government have taken into consideration of all claims including the representations, of the petitioner and the seventh respondent and it would reveal the reasons for taking such a decision to supply waste granite to village Self Help Groups. It is vehemently contended that the Government passed the impugned order only with the object of protecting the interest of weaker Sections, viz., Self Help Groups numbering 9, consisting 165 women-folk, as they are also living below the poverty line and coolies and also members of the family of the other workers. It is pointed out that the said nine Self Help Groups would be benefited by the impugned order for their livelihood. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the members of the petitioner union are getting the benefit of supply of waste stone generated from other three quarries from the Survey Nos. 398/1, 272/2 and 3 and as such, they cannot claim a monopoly right of the quarries. 2. Insupport of his contention, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri AIR 1991 SC 1216 : (1991) 3 SCC 38 : 1991-II-LLJ-594, for the proposition that the administrative order need not contain reasons and the reasons could be gathered from the documents relied by the Government for passing the impugned order. 11. Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the claim of the members of the petitioner union to the effect that they have been supplied with waste granite even from Survey Ni. 297/5 is proved to be false in view of the documents produced by the petitioner union themselves by way of typed-set. It is pointed out that the Government letter in Na.Ka. No. 14508i/07/A2 dated 210. 2007 clearly establishes that the petitioner union made a representation even during the year 2007 seeking for the relief of supply of waste granite generated from the quarry situated in Survey No. 297/5. It is further pointed out that as per communication of the TAMIN dated 24. 2008, it is seen that the petitioner union made a representation for the supply of waste stone from the quarry in Survey No. 297/5 in the year 2007. It is further pointed out that as per communication of the TAMIN dated 24. 2008, it is seen that the petitioner union made a representation for the supply of waste stone from the quarry in Survey No. 297/5 in the year 2007. Lastly, it is pointed out that even as per the document produced by the petitioner dated 17. 2008 in respect of a peace committee meeting, it is seen that till the year 2008, the members affiliated to the petitioner union have not been supplied with the waste granite generated from Survey No. 297/5. The learned Special Government Pleader would further point out that in the peace committee meeting proceedings dated 17. 2008, the signature of one Jayaraman, who has signed the affidavit filed in the writ petition representing the petitioner union is also found, and as such, the petitioner union cannot claim that they are getting the supply of waste granite even from the Survey No. 297/5 (Pokkishamalai) quarry from the year 1991. 12. Mr. A. Saravana Kumar, learned counsel for the seventh respondent contended that there is no illegality in the impugned Government Order passed by the Government. It is submitted that the Self Help Groups are consisting poor coolies and they are also fighting for their livelihood and their interest should be protected. It is contended that only keeping in view of such object, the Government has taken a policy decision and issued the impugned Government Order and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 13. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record as produced by the petitioner as well as the respondents including the impugned order. 14. The undisputed fact remains that the members affiliated to the petitioner union and other workers are enjoying the supply of waste granite generated from quarries situated in Survey numbers S.F. No. 398/1 of Keezhaiyur and in S.F. Nos. 272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu. The dispute is only in respect of Survey No. 297/5 (Pokkishamalai). 14. The undisputed fact remains that the members affiliated to the petitioner union and other workers are enjoying the supply of waste granite generated from quarries situated in Survey numbers S.F. No. 398/1 of Keezhaiyur and in S.F. Nos. 272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu. The dispute is only in respect of Survey No. 297/5 (Pokkishamalai). Both the petitioner and the Government made rival claims as the petitioner claimed that they are getting supply of waste stone from the said quarry situated in S.F. No. 297/5 right from 1991 and on the other hand, the Government contended that such claim is false even as per the documents produced by the petitioner through the typed-set filed before this Court. 15. 1. Though this Court cannot go into the disputed facts by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court can very well look into the materials produced and relied by both sides. The documents produced by the petitioner before this Court are all Government documents apart from the representations of the petitioners. 15. 2. The first document is an agreement dated 6. 1991 said to have been entered into between the TAMIN and the quarry workers of Keezhaiyur village on certain terms in the said agreement, there is a specific mention only in respect of quarry in Survey No. 398/1 in Keezhaiyur village. It is pertinent to note that there is no mention about the dispute S.F. No. 297/5 in the said agreement dated 6. 1991. 15. 3. The second document is minutes of the fourth respondent dated 2. 1993. In the said document, there is a reference about the Keezhavalavu (Pokkishamalai) quarry dispute and it reveals that no final decision has been taken in respect of the supply of waste generated from the said quarry and it was only stated that in respect of supplying the waste stone to the workers, the same would be enquired and verified and only thereafter permission has to be granted. 15. 4. The third document is a letter dated 22. 2001 written by the Government to the District Collector, Madurai, marking copies to the Director, Geology and Mining, Chairman and Managing Director, TAMIN, etc. It is seen from the said document that there was a general reference about the quarries situated in Keezhaiyur and Keezhavalavu villages and there is no specific mention about Survey numbers. 2001 written by the Government to the District Collector, Madurai, marking copies to the Director, Geology and Mining, Chairman and Managing Director, TAMIN, etc. It is seen from the said document that there was a general reference about the quarries situated in Keezhaiyur and Keezhavalavu villages and there is no specific mention about Survey numbers. The said document further reveals that the Secretary to the Government sated that the poverty of the local workers of the two villages and the law and order problem have been taken into consideration for the supply of waste generated from the quarry of the two villages. It is relevant to note that there is no specific mention about any Survey numbers much less the disputed S.F. No. 297/5 in the said document. 15. 5. The fourth document is dated 210. 2007-the report of the Tahsildar/the sixth respondent in the said document, there is a reference about the representation made by Melur Taluk Stone Quarry Workers Union dated 110. 2007. The said document further discloses that no decision has been taken till such time in respect of the supply of waste stone from the quarry under S.F. No. 297/5, 15. 6. The document Nos. 5 and 6 are the representations of the petitioner union and the list of the members of the petitioner union given to the third respondent respectively. 15. 7. The seventh document is the letter dated 24. 2008 of TAMIN/the second respondent to the fifth respondent/District Collector marking a copy to the Deputy Manager, Melur, TAMIN/third respondent. It is seen from the said document that a reference was made about the representation received from the petitioner union dated 24. 2007. It is specifically stated that the petitioner union is seeking for the supply of waste generated from Keezhavalavu S.F. No. 297/5 colour granite quarry in Melur Taluk and Madurai District. Therefore, it reveals that the workers affiliated to the petitioner union or other workers have not received the supply of waste generated from the quarry situated in Survey No. 297/5 till the year 2008. It is pertinent to note that as per this document, TAMIN was agreeable to supply waste generated from S.F. No. 297/5 quarry to the Self Help Groups of the villagers in Keezhavalavu for their community development. It is pertinent to note that as per this document, TAMIN was agreeable to supply waste generated from S.F. No. 297/5 quarry to the Self Help Groups of the villagers in Keezhavalavu for their community development. Therefore, it is very clear that the TAMIN recommended tie supply of waste generated from the quarry in S.F. No. 297/5 only to the Self Help Groups and that too with the object of their community development and for enabling them to eke out their livelihood and improve their living standards. It is pertinent to note that TAMIN had taken the above said decision to protect the interest of Self Help Groups as early as on 24. 2008. 15. 8. The eighth document dated 17. 2008 is the Memorandum of Tahsildar/the sixth respondent and the said document reveals that the petitioner union was planning to conduct road-roko and about a proposal to conduct peace committee meeting on 17. 2006. 19. The ninth document dated 17. 2008 is the proceedings of the peace committee meeting. A perusal of he said document reveals that a decision was taken to approach the Government in respect of supply of waste granite generated from the quarry in survey No. 297/5 (Pokkishamalai) and act as per the Government order. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner union also agreed to give co-operation to the steps taken by the Government. It is seen that in the said document, the Tahsildar, Melur, and others signed including Mr. Jayaraman, who has filed the affidavit in this writ petition representing the petitioner union. 110. As already stated, this Court cannot go into the disputed facts. A perusal of he above said materials placed before this Court, prima facie establish that the workers affiliated to the petitioner union or other workers have not been supplied with the waste generated from quarry situated in Survey No. 297/5 at any point of time. At this juncture, this Court is also constrained to state that even assuming if not admitting that the worker; affiliated to the petitioner union or other workers were supplied with waste generated from the quarry in S.F. No. 297/5, they cannot claim any vested, absolute, perpetual and monopoly right. It is open to the Government to take a decision as per the prevailing circumstances, and as per their policy. It is open to the Government to take a decision as per the prevailing circumstances, and as per their policy. This court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision of the Government and substitute its own judgment. The Government is having certain amount of discretion to take any decision on the basis of their policy to the welfare of the weaker Sections of the community at large. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the power of judicial review of an order of an administrative authority, in Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills AIR 2002 SC 834 : (2002) 3 SCC 496 held as hereunder: 10. …the extent of judicial scrutiny/judicial review in the case of administrative action cannot be larger than in the case of quasi-judicial action. If the High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority over the decisions and orders of quasi-judicial authority, it follows equally that it cannot be do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the matter of administrative action, it is well known, more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities; they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. …. The Court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative authorities in such cases. Only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, can the Court intervene.” (emphasis supplied) 17. The above said principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case the decision taken by the Government cannot be stated to be so unfair and unreasonable and further it cannot be stated that the impugned order is the outcome of arbitrary exercise of the discretion of the Government. 18. Nowcoming to the question of assigning reasons in the impugned order, it is contended by the respondents that the impugned order, being an administrative order and the order based on the Government policy, need not contain any reason. On the other hand, it is pointed out by the teamed counsel for the petitioner that as the impugned order is affecting the right to livelihood of the members of the petitioner union would result in civil consequences and as such, it should contain reasons and the petitioner ought to have been heard before passing the impugned order. 19. On the other hand, it is pointed out by the teamed counsel for the petitioner that as the impugned order is affecting the right to livelihood of the members of the petitioner union would result in civil consequences and as such, it should contain reasons and the petitioner ought to have been heard before passing the impugned order. 19. As far as the legal position is concerned, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri (supra) and contended that it is always open to the authorities concerned to place reasons before the Court which may have persuaded it to pass orders on the basis of the materials available on record. It is contended that in the impugned order there are reference about certain Government orders, letters of recommendation of the District Collector, Madurai, and TAMIN favouring the supply of waste granite to the village Self Help groups and the documents and records produced before the Court discloses the reasons for passing the order and such reasons are existing on records and it cannot be contended that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. As relied by Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri (supra) held as hereunder: “The principles of natural justice are intended to prevent miscarriage of justice and are now applied even to administrative orders which involve civil consequences. Generally, principles of natural justice require that opportunity of hearing should be given to the person against whom an administrative order is passed. The application of principles of natural justice, and its sweep depend upon the nature of the rights involved, having regard to the setting and context of the statutory provisions. Where a statute requires an authority though acting administratively to record reasons. It is mandatory for the authority to pass speaking orders and in the absence of reasons the order would be rendered illegal. Where a vested right is adversely affected by an administrative order, or where civil consequence ensue, principles of natural justice apply even if the statutory provisions do not make any express provision for the same, and the person concerned must be afforded opportunity of hearing before the order is passed. Where a vested right is adversely affected by an administrative order, or where civil consequence ensue, principles of natural justice apply even if the statutory provisions do not make any express provision for the same, and the person concerned must be afforded opportunity of hearing before the order is passed. But principles of natural justice do not require the administrative authority to record reasons for the decision as there is no general rule that reasons must be given for administrative decision. Order of an administrative authority which has no statutory or implied duty to state reasons or the grounds of its decision is not rendered illegal merely on account of absence of reasons. It has never been a principle of natural justice that reasons should be given for decisions. However, there is necessity for giving reasons in view of the expanding law of judicial review to enable the citizens to discover the reasoning behind the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. Under our Constitution an administrative decision is subject to judicial review if it affects the right of a citizen. It is therefore, desirable that reasons should be stated. If any challenge is made to the validity of an order on the ground of it being arbitrary or mala fide, it is always open to the authority concerned to place reasons before the Court which may have persuaded it to pass the orders. Such reasons must already exist on records as it is not permissible to the authority to support that order by reasons not contained in the records.” (emphasis supplied) 20. A reading of the above said decision makes it crystal clear that an order of an administrative authority which has no statutory or implied duty to state reasons or the grounds of its decision is not rendered illegal merely on account of absence of reasons. The principles of natural justice does not require that reasons should be stated in the decision arrived at for issuing administrative orders. It is further made clear in the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the authority concerned is entitled to place reasons before the Court for passing the orders and such reasons must already exist on records. 21. On the other hand, Mr. It is further made clear in the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the authority concerned is entitled to place reasons before the Court for passing the orders and such reasons must already exist on records. 21. On the other hand, Mr. Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as here under: “29. …… It is the civil consequence which obliterates the distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative function. Moreover, with the growth of the administrative law, the old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Therefore, it hardly needs reiteration that even a purely administrative order which entail civil consequences, must be consistent with the rules of natural justice, (Also see Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 ). 39. As already noted above, the expression “civil consequences” encompasses Infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. Anything which affects a citizen in his civil life comes under its wide umbrella. Accordingly, we reject the argument and hold that since an order under Section 142(2-A) does, entail civil” consequences, the rule audi alteram partem is required to be observed.” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said decision reiterated the view taken in its earlier decision in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri (supra). 23. As far as the instant case is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order does not reveal that it is a non-speaking order, in the impugned order references were made in respect of the earlier communications and Government Orders and added to that it is clearly stated that the TAMIN and the District Collector, Madurai District, recommended to give the supply of waste generated from quarries of S.F. No. 297/5 to the Self Help Groups of the villages. It is also seen that the seventh respondent preferred a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 5185 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 26. 2009 directed the fifth respondent to consider their request and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks and accordingly, the District Collector recommended to the Government to supply the waste stone to the Self Help Group. 2009 directed the fifth respondent to consider their request and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks and accordingly, the District Collector recommended to the Government to supply the waste stone to the Self Help Group. It is further pertinent to note that it is specifically stated in the impugned order that the decision of supplying waste granite generated from Survey No. 297/5 was taken to eke out their livelihood and improve their living standards as they are also living below the poverty line and struggling for their livelihood. Apart from the above said facts, as already pointed out, the documents and materials placed before this Court makes it crystal clear that the reasons are already existing on records which persuaded the Government to take the decision to pass the impugned order. It is seen from the said materials that the petitioner union was heard on several occasions by way of conducting peace committee meetings and their representations were also considered by the Government on several occasions and as such, it cannot be contended that they have not been heard before passing the impugned order. 24. Now let me consider the claim of the petitioner union that they have already furnished a list to the third respondent consisting the names of the workers and the Government should give the benefit of supply of waste generated from the quarry in S.F. No. 297/5 only to those members. It is pertinent to note, as already pointed out, that the members affiliated to the petitioner union and other workers are already enjoying the supply of waste generated from other quarries in Survey Nos. 398/1 and 3 of Keezhaiyur and S.F. Nos. 272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu villages and that being the position, they cannot claim any vested, perpetual, absolute and monopoly right for the supply of waste stone generated from all the quarries. It is needless to state that the Government may take a decision to supply the waste stone by equal distribution to all the weaker Sections of the community at large. This Court cannot review the said policy decision of the Government. 25. Itis relevant to refer to the landmark decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal AIR 2004 SC 3800 : (2004) 4 SCC 714 . It was held as follows: “28. This Court cannot review the said policy decision of the Government. 25. Itis relevant to refer to the landmark decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal AIR 2004 SC 3800 : (2004) 4 SCC 714 . It was held as follows: “28. The Scope and extent of power of the judicial review of the High Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary from case to case. The nature of the order, the relevant statue as also the other relevant factors including the nature of power exercised by the public authorities, namely, whether the power is statutory, quasi judicial or administrative. The power or Judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role or done the robes of omnipresent. The power is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the Courts, step into the areas exclusively reserved by suprema lex to the other organs of the state. Decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition may not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review Court. The limited scope of judicial review succinctly put are: .(i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies; .(ii) A petition for a judicial review would he only on a certain well-defined grounds. (iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal. .(iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more it not enough to attract the power of judicial review the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a Court is limited to seeing that Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasion miscarriage of justice. .(v) The Courts cannot be called upon to undertake the Government duties and functions. The Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. Social and economic, belief of a Judge should not be invoked as a substitute for the judgment of the legislative bodies.” (emphasis supplied) 26. .(v) The Courts cannot be called upon to undertake the Government duties and functions. The Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. Social and economic, belief of a Judge should not be invoked as a substitute for the judgment of the legislative bodies.” (emphasis supplied) 26. A Division Bench of this Court in Aminjikarai Lorry Owner’s Welfare Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 4 MLJ 524 while dealing in respect of Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act and Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules held as hereunder at p.536 of MLJ: “28…. The petitioners have really challenged the policy decision of the State Government which had introduced the loading system for loading the sand at the quarry site. It is well settled that ordinarily this Court cannot interfere with policy and administrative decisions unless it is in violation of some statutory or constitutional provision or is shockingly arbitrary in the Wednesbury sense vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 : (1994) 6 SCC 651 , Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689 : (2001) 2 SCC 386 , Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, AIR 2004 SC 1402 : (2004) 2 SCC 150 : (2004) 1 MLJ 132, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers’ Association, (2005) LIC 1579 : (2005) 1 MLJ 507 , S. Ramanathan v. Somesuvarapuram Girama Vivasaya Nala Pathukappu Sangam, (2005) 2 MLJ 260 : (2005) WLR 451, Damon Pinna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain, 2005-I-LLJ-730, Union of India v. International Trading Company, AIR 2003 SC 3983 : (2003) 5 SCC 437 : JT 2003 Vol 4 SC 549 (para-17) : 2003 AIR SCW 2828 (para-18), Delhi Development Authority v. Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs.) AIR 2003 SC 3669 : (2003) 7 SCC 301 : (2003) 3 MLJ 204, Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128 : (1997) 9 SCC 495 , O.N.G.C. Madras Port Contract Employees’ Union v. Management of O.N.G.C. Ltd., (2005) 2 MLJ 90 , etc. 29…… 30. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (supra) (vide paragraph 113) the Supreme Court observed: .(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. .(2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over administrative decisions but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. 29…… 30. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (supra) (vide paragraph 113) the Supreme Court observed: .(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. .(2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over administrative decisions but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. .(3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct an administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, whether the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible.” 31. In the same decision the Supreme Court observed that judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision but the decision making process.” 27. The decision of the Hon’ble apex Court and the Division Bench, of this Court make it crystal clear that while dealing with the Government policy and the administrative order, it is to be remembered that the Government is having certain amount of discretion and in administrative matters the Court should therefore, ordinarily defer to the judgment of the administrators unless the decision is clearly illegal or shockingly arbitrary and the exercise of the discretion of the Government is perverse or illegal. 28. As far as the case on hand is concerned, in view of the reasons stated above, it is crystal clear that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the Government policy particularly to protect the right to livelihood of the village Self Help Groups and to improve their living standard as they are living below the poverty line. The impugned order is the outcome of the above said Government policy and it cannot be stated that the decision of the Government is dearly illegal or shockingly arbitrary or the discretion exercised by the Government is perverse or illegal warranting interference of this Court. 29. Let me now consider yet another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the members affiliated to the petitioner union and other workers were getting supply of waste stone generated from Survey No. 297/5 and the said supply was stopped from the month of August 2009 by passing the impugned order affecting their legitimate expectation which is considered to be the part of principles of natural Justice. 30. 30. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & E.T.I.O. (2007) 4 MLJ 723 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court in that decision held as hereunder at p.762 of MLJ: “147. Legitimate expectation is now considered to be a part of principles of natural justice. If by reasons of the existing state of affairs, a party is given to understand that the other party shall not take away the benefit without complying with the principles or natural Justice, the said doctrine would be applicable. The legislature, indisputably, has the power to legislate but where the law itself recognizes existing right and did rut take away the same expressly or by necessary implication, the principles of legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit may be held to be applicable.” 31. This Court is of the considered view that the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. At the risk of repetition, it is to be reiterated that the materials placed before this Court revealed that the members affiliated to the petitioner union or other workers have never been supplied with the waste stone generated from the quarry situated in S.F. No. 297/5. Therefore, the petitioner union cannot contend that their existing right was taken away through the impugned order affecting their legitimate expectation. 32. Let menow consider the last but not the least submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that denying the supply of waste stone to the members of the petitioner union and other workers would amount to depriving their right to livelihood resulting in civil consequences due to infringement of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. The learned counsel placed reliance on the landmark decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as hereunder: “33. Article 39(a) of the Constitution, which is a Directive Principle of State Policy, provides that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 39(a) of the Constitution, which is a Directive Principle of State Policy, provides that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 41, which is another Directive Principle, provides, inter alia, that the State; shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the, right to work in cases of unemployment of underserved want. Article 37 provides that the Directive Principles, though not enforceable by any Court, are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. The principles contained in Articles 39 (a) and 41 must be regarded as equally fundamental in the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights. If there is an obligation upon the State to secure to the citizens and adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right livelihood from the content of the right to life. The State may not, by affirmative action, be compellable to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person, who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred by Article 21.” 33. the principle laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant cases as the Hon’ble Apex Court in that decision high-lighted the rights of both men and women to adequate means of livelihood, in this case, the petitioner union made a strange claim that the authorities should supply waste stone generated from the S.F. No. 297/5 (Pokkishamalai) only to the workers as per the list furnished by the petitioner union consisting the names of the workers to the third respondent. It is to be remembered that the members affiliated to the petitioner union alone are not entitled to the right to livelihood, but equally the Self Help Group members consisting women-folk, who are also poor coolies, are also entitled to such right to livelihood. There cannot be any gender discrimination. It is to be remembered that the members affiliated to the petitioner union alone are not entitled to the right to livelihood, but equally the Self Help Group members consisting women-folk, who are also poor coolies, are also entitled to such right to livelihood. There cannot be any gender discrimination. It is relevant to refer that Article 14 of the Constitution of India confers on men and women equal rights and opportunities in the political, economic and social spheres and Article 39(a) lays down that the State shall direct its policy towards securing all citizens, men and women, equally, the right to means of livelihood. It is pertinent to note that there are nine Self Help Groups consisting 165 members and even some of them are members of the petitioner union and as such the right to livelihood of all concerned are protected by the impugned order. 34. It is pertinent to note that there are nine Self Help Groups consisting 165 members and even some of them are members of the petitioner union and as such the right to livelihood of all concerned are protected by the impugned order. 34. The conclusions arrived at on the basis of the reasons assigned, as stated above, in respect of the legality of the impugned order are summed up as hereunder: .(i) the impugned order was passed by the first respondent on the basis of the policy decision of the Government and as such, the judicial review of such order is to be restricted only in the event of the Impugned order being so unfair, unreasonable and shockingly arbitrary, but the impugned order ‘does not suffer from such infirmities and illegalities; .(ii) The impugned order discloses that the said order was passed by the Government by exercising its discretion vested on it and the said exercise of discretion by passing the impugned order cannot be stated to be perverse or illegal warranting the interference of this Court; (iii) A perusal of the impugned order reveals that it cannot be stated to be non-speaking order and the order contains reasons to the effect that the second respondent on the basis of the representations of both the petitioner as well as the seventh respondent recommended the claim of the seventh respondent made on behalf of the village Self Help Groups and the Government in the impugned order specifically stated that with a view to protect the interest of the village Self Help Groups to eke out their livelihood and to improve their living standard decided to give the supply of waste granite stone generated from Survey No. 297/5 to the village Self Help Groups and this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the said administrative decision passed on certain reasons and substitute its own view; .(iv) The materials records produced before this Court, viz., the recommendations of the TAMIN and the District Collector in favour of the supply of waste granite to the village Self Help groups, minutes of the fourth respondent dated 2. 1993, letter of the Government dated 22. 2001, report of the sixth respondent dated 210. 2007, representation of the petitioner dated 12. 2008, letter of the second respondent dated 24. 2008, Memorandum of the sixth respondent dated 17. 1993, letter of the Government dated 22. 2001, report of the sixth respondent dated 210. 2007, representation of the petitioner dated 12. 2008, letter of the second respondent dated 24. 2008, Memorandum of the sixth respondent dated 17. 2008 and the peace committee meeting report dated 17. 2008 demonstrated the reasons persuaded the Government to pass the impugned order taking a decision of supplying the waste granite to the village Self Help Groups. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the reasons already exist on records; .(v) A perusal of the documents produced before this Court, as stated above, also discloses that the petitioner union was heard on several occasions in respect of their grievance through the peace committee meetings. It is always open to the Government to take a decision on the basis of rival claims made, by two groups in favour of one group on the basis of the Government’s policy and object. .(vi) The judicial review does not contemplate reviewing the merits of the decision, but only the decision making process. The impugned order, being the outcome of the Government’s policy decision with the object of protecting the interest and welfare of the village Self Help Groups enabling them to eke out their livelihood and improve their living standard and the said object was demonstrated through the materials and records placed before this Court and as such, it cannot be stated that the said decision making process suffers from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. (vii) The impugned order was passed not in favour of the seventh respondent alone as the said order itself reveals that the Government have decided to give supply of waste granite to village Self Help Groups. It is brought to the notice of this Court that there are nine village Self Help Groups consisting 165 members and some of them are also members of the petitioner union and as such, through the impugned order the Government has not shown any favour only in respect of a particular group and it is seen that the representation of the seventh respondent dated 24. 2009 also discloses that the seventh respondent made representation for the supply of waste granite not only for them but also to the other Self Help Groups. 2009 also discloses that the seventh respondent made representation for the supply of waste granite not only for them but also to the other Self Help Groups. (viii) The undisputed fact remains that the members affiliated to the petitioner union and other workers are already enjoying the supply of waste granite from other quarries in Survey Nos. 398/1 of Keezhaiyur and 272/2 and 3 of Keezhavalavu and they cannot insist that the supply of waste granite from Survey No. 297/5 should also be given to them. They cannot have vested, absolute, perpetual and monopoly right for getting supply of waste granite only to them. It is open to the Government to take a policy decision on certain grounds and the petitioner union has no say in it. (ix) As the documents placed before this Court demonstrated that the workers affiliated to the petitioner union have been never supplied with the waste granite from S.F. No. 297/5 it cannot be stated that their existing right was taken away by the impugned order and thereby affected their legitimate expectation which resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. .(x) It cannot be stated that the right to livelihood of the workers affiliated to the petitioner union and other workers are alone affected by the impugned order as the village Self Help Groups consisting womenfolk, who are also having equal right to livelihood, as they are also living below the poverty line and they are also solely depending on the avocation of stone cutting for their livelihood. It is brought to the notice of this Court that some of the members of the village Self Help Groups are also mentioned in the list furnished by the petitioner union to the third respondent. There should not be gender discrimination as Article 14 of the Constitution of India confers on men and women equal rights and opportunities in the political, economic and social spheres and Article 39(a) lays down that the State shall direct its policy towards securing all citizens, men and women, equally, the right to means of livelihood. 35. There should not be gender discrimination as Article 14 of the Constitution of India confers on men and women equal rights and opportunities in the political, economic and social spheres and Article 39(a) lays down that the State shall direct its policy towards securing all citizens, men and women, equally, the right to means of livelihood. 35. In view of the aforesaid reasons and in view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Benches of this Court as stated above, this Court has come to the irresistible conclusion that there is absolutely no ground made out by the petitioner warranting interference of this Court in the impugned order passed in G.O. (2D) No. 26, Industries (MME-I) Department dated 29. 2009 and accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 36. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner union to make any further representation to the Government seeking for the relief of giving a portion or share of supply of waste granite generated from the quarry situated in Survey No. 297/5 for the benefit of the workers irrespective of their political party affiliations and on such representation the Government shall consider the feasibility of given some share of supply of waste granite to the members of the petitioner union and workers subject to the Government’s policy and the availability of surplus waste generated from the said Survey No. S.F. No. 297/5 (Pokkishamalai). Petition dismissed.