JUDGMENT K.J. Sengupta, J. 1. THIS appeal as well as another appeal in the Appellate Side being No. A.S.T. 177 of 2011 were heard analogously by consent of the parties as the nature of both the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge are similar and identical in language " only difference is the order passed in the Original Side which is a final one, whereas the same passed in Appellate Side is interim order. Both the appeals are preferred by a third party against the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2011 (in Original Side) by which the learned Trial Judge has set aside the reasoned order passed by the Joint Directors and fresh order was directed to be passed. 2. THE short fact in the Original Side matter leading to preferring the instant appeal is as follows:- The respondent No.1 being the writ-petitioner and the sole proprietor of the respondent No.2 namely M/s. Laxmi Narayan Food Products (Unit No.II) has established and installed a flour mill with all modern equipments including automatic packing machine, dosing machine etc. at Reni Road, Purulia Town, Post Office and District " Purulia. The said mill was installed aiming at to make it ready for grinding wheats and producing fortified Atta and after having packeted for distribution to the BPL categories of people in the District of Purulia within the modified ration areas. The writ petitioner-respondent (in the Original Side matter) pursuant to the guidelines being memo dated 10th August, 2007 applied to be selected for getting allotment of certain quantity of wheat for grinding and packaging of fortified Atta. Likewise the writ petitioner, other eight mill-owners also applied. The writ petitioner-respondent is claiming to have milling capacity of producing 141.60 metric tones Atta per day. The application of the respondent No.1 followed by several representation dated 27th July 2010, 28th October 2010, 25th November 2010 and 29th November 2010 respectively to the Commissioner of Food was rejected by memo dated 25th November 2010 on the ground that the further allotment of BPL wheat for conversion into fortified Atta for distribution through PDS network was not possible because the district quota is fixed and the same has already been allotted to different flour mills. According to writ petitioner-respondent the said rejection was wrong and unfair as the supply and distribution of BPL wheat to the eligible mill owners are to be made equitably in view of number of judicial pronouncements having held so far. The respondent No.1 (Original Side matter) thereafter challenged the said memo dated 25th November, 2010 on various grounds by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 1615 of 2010 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 10th January 2011 by Justice Tapen Sen. By this order Justice Sen was pleased to set aside the said memo and directed the Joint Directors of DDP and S respondent No.4 to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner by passing fresh order. In the said order various observations were made by Justice Sen, which apparently had got supportive value of the case of the writ petitioner. 3. IN terms of the said order dated 10th January, 2011 the Joint Director reconsidered the matter upon hearing the petitioners with detailed reasons and he found it impossible to allot any further quota observing that unless only the quota of district is enhanced and further vacancy is created by inviting application from all other flour mills/units of the districts, such sporadic new inclusion may open a flood gate for new aspirant while Government will have to accommodate many by curtailing the quota of existing flour mills day after day which will create problem for those including the writ petitioner/respondent. Thereafter the writ petitioner-respondent filed a contempt application alleging violation of the order passed by Justice Sen on 10th January 2011. IN the said contempt application direction was given to carry out earlier order. IN addition to the contempt application the writ petitioner again filed fresh writ petition being No.103 of 2011 challenging the last order passed by the Joint Director on 20thJanuary, 2011. 4. IN this writ petition no other mill owners were made parties. The learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned order observed that the order passed by the Joint Director was neither in true spirit of earlier order nor in consonance with observation made by Justice Sen wherein previous order of the Division Bench containing relevant observation was also recorded. 4. IN this writ petition no other mill owners were made parties. The learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned order observed that the order passed by the Joint Director was neither in true spirit of earlier order nor in consonance with observation made by Justice Sen wherein previous order of the Division Bench containing relevant observation was also recorded. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary appears to have passed an order dated 12th April, 2011 reallocating quota of BPL wheat to thirteen (13) eligible flour mill/chakkis including second unit of the writ petitioner/respondent. IN view of the reallocation of quota as above the quota of the appellant was naturally reduced. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal contends that impugned order dated 10th January, 2011 was passed in absence of his client though it is recorded therein that other mill owners including the appellant are also allottee of the BPL wheat. According to Mr. Mukherjee this order seriously affects the right of his client of being allotted with wheat. Consequent upon the said order the department has passed order dated 12th April, 2011 reducing the quota previously allotted to his client without any hearing being given although, an inspection was held to ascertain milling capacity and also workability of other infrastructure in the mills which are required to produce fortified Atta with allotted quota of BPL wheat. He submits that the reliance of the learned trial Judge on Division Bench order was totally misplaced as the said order was an interim one in an appeal which was ultimately dismissed. 5. HE further contends that learned Trial Judge sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the policy decision of the Government unless the same is patently irrational, arbitrary and illegal. The order which was set aside by the learned Trial Judge, was passed after reconsideration of the entire matter clearly recording that inclusion of the new mill owners for grinding BPL wheat for converting fortified Atta following norms of equitable distribution would have serious problem as the supply of the quantity of BPL wheat in the district of Purulia is fixed. When the decision was taken by the Government with reason which does not appear to be irrational or arbitrary the Writ Court should not have interfered with the same. When the decision was taken by the Government with reason which does not appear to be irrational or arbitrary the Writ Court should not have interfered with the same. Parameter of exercise of jurisdiction of the Writ Court in administrative action has well been explained by Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Jagadambha Coak Manufacturing v. Bharat Coak Limited reported in 93 CWN 673. 6. HE contends as legal submission that the Court itself should refrain from embarking upon unchartered ocean of public policy. Unless the policy decision infringes the fundamental right or the constitutional provision the Court should not interfere with the same. According to him previous policy decision did not affect any one’s legal right not to speak of fundamental right. The impugned order of the learned Trial Judge is the root cause of reduction in the quota of his client. In fact, the appellant has already applied for enhancing the allotment of the wheat in addition to what was allotted previously before reduction by the impugned order. In view of non-consideration of application of such increase of quota the petitioner had to file a fresh writ petition wherein appropriate order has been passed to consider request for increase of quota of wheat to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the decision taken on 20th January, 2011 by the Government should not have been interfered with by the learned Trial Judge. HE reiterates the said decision dated 12th April, 2011 reducing the quota of his client has been taken without giving any hearing whatsoever. Learned Counsel for the State Mr. Murari Mohan Das, Advocate supports the argument of Mr. Mukherjee and contends that because of the order impugned, passed by the learned Trial Judge under threat of contempt earlier decision had to be reviewed although it is impossible to manage distribution and allotment system of the wheat to all the mill owners as the mill owners are either setting up second unit or enhancing its milling capacity to extract more supply in circuitous way on the one hand and on the other hand there is no increase of supply in the District of Purulia. He further submits that the order of the learned Trial Judge under appeal should be set aside and the decision which had to be taken in terms of the order of the learned Trial Judge needs to be reviewed. 7. MR. He further submits that the order of the learned Trial Judge under appeal should be set aside and the decision which had to be taken in terms of the order of the learned Trial Judge needs to be reviewed. 7. MR. Malay Kr. Bose, Senior Advocate while appearing for his client M/s. Shiv Shakti Industries the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 submits that the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified as the appellant and few other mill owners were enjoying monopoly in grinding BPL wheats. There are several judicial pronouncements as recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the instant proceeding, and also other proceeding by the Division 8. BENCH of this Court that allotment of BPL wheat to mill owners should be made on equitable basis. According to him, every mill owner as far as practicable according to its milling capacity shall be allocated certain quantity of BPL wheat. He further contends that the demand of increase of quota of Mr. Mukherjee’s client was already rejected by the appropriate official pursuant to order of Justice Debasish Kar Gupta. He also informs that Mr. Mukherjee’s client in circuitous way is demanding increase of allotment of quota by increasing the milling capacity. Therefore, this order passed by the department pursuant to the order of learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified and no interference is required. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent M/s. Laxmi Narayan Food Products (Unit-II), supports the argument of Mr. Bose and according to him the Government officials were reluctant to follow the established judicial pronouncement as regards method and mode of distribution of BPL wheat to the mill owners. Hence the learned Trial Judge was compelled to pass the aforesaid order. It is significant to mention that initial order passed by the learned Trial Judge was not appealed against. Subsequent order, which is challenged, was a sequel to non-compliance of the order passed earlier which has reached its finality. Hence, the challenge to impugned order has no significance keeping the first order valid and subsisting. We have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsels for the parties and we have carefully gone through the paper placed in the paper book as well as the order passed by the various Courts from time to time and orders passed by the department which are not included in paper book. We have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsels for the parties and we have carefully gone through the paper placed in the paper book as well as the order passed by the various Courts from time to time and orders passed by the department which are not included in paper book. Those orders are undisputed. After giving opportunity of being heard and on production of those materials we notice that the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge need scrutiny by this Court as the said order had a direct impact on the allotment of BPL wheat to the appellant. Undoubtedly in terms of the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge the department had to pass order taking note of the same. It appears from the records that before passing order by the department for reallocation of quantity of BPL wheat the appropriate officials made an enquiry and conducted survey with regard to the milling capacity and required infrastructural facility of all the flour mills in the district including that of the appellant. It appears to us that the writ petitioner-respondent after having set up second unit applied for allotment on the plea of equitable distribution of wheat whereas the appellant before us without establishing second unit but increasing milling capacity had also applied for enhancement of quota of wheat. We note in the impugned judgment and order that the learned Trial Judge has recorded the quota of the appellant while directing equitable distribution. In our view the learned Trial Judge in that case ought to have directed the appropriate officials to hear not only the appellant but also the other affected allottees as there was every likelihood to decrease the allotted quota consequent upon allotment of wheats to new mill owners. Obviously the officer concerned did not hear any of them before taking final decision which has affected their existing rights. 9. ON that ground the order passed by the appropriate officer of the department in obedience to the order of the learned Trial Judge ought to have been set aside. 10. HOWEVER, on subsequent development we notice that pursuant to the order passed by Justice Debasish Kar Gupta on 7th April, 2011 in the separate writ petition of the appellant herein, the department has passed a reasoned order on 26th May, 2011. 10. HOWEVER, on subsequent development we notice that pursuant to the order passed by Justice Debasish Kar Gupta on 7th April, 2011 in the separate writ petition of the appellant herein, the department has passed a reasoned order on 26th May, 2011. On reading of the said order it appears to us that the almost same contention as raised in this appeal was raised before the said officer at the time of hearing. It has been mentioned specifically in the order dated 26th May, 2011 that pursuant to the order dated 22nd March, 2011 passed on the writ petition of the respondent No.1 herein the decision was taken for equitable distribution of the BPL wheats to all the eligible flour mills. It is true the Division Bench judgment in APOT 358 of 2007 was an interim order but the learned Trial Judge has adopted such observation as part of His Lordship’s order. Therefore, the theory of equitable distribution as mentioned in the interim order of the Division Bench cannot be brushed aside. After hearing the appellant’s contention the Director has passed an order with reasons after taking into consideration district quota of BPL wheat allotted, said order runs as follows:- "The amount of BPL wheat is allotted to district taking into consideration the number of BPL beneficiaries and the prescribed scale of distribution as no BPL household has newly been surveyed, the district quota BPL wheat almost remain the same. The monthly allotted quota against the petitioner has been curtailed recently while Government Order No. 2834-FS dated 12th April, 2011 was issued by the Joint Secretary, Food and Supply Department to accommodate four new flour mills in the district of Purulia in terms of the order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P.No.103 of 2011 as the district quota BPL wheat is fixed. There was specific direction of the Hon’ble Court to the effect that the prayer of the petitioner have to be considered on the basis of equitable distribution. There was specific direction of the Hon’ble Court to the effect that the prayer of the petitioner have to be considered on the basis of equitable distribution. So, the respondent in the instant case had no other alternative but to re-allot the fixed district quota amongst 13 flour mills instead of existing 9 flour mills strictly on the basis of their effective milling capacity on the guided principle of equitable distribution and hence there was curtailment in the monthly quota of not only M/s. Ashirbad Food Products Ltd. but also the instant petitioner and other flour mill owners also." 11. IN view of the aforesaid decision on the claim and contention of the appellant it is difficult for this Court to grant any effective relief as prayed for herein as the aforesaid order remains outstanding and it is not under challenge before this Court so it would be open for the appellant to take such course of action as may be advised in future. 12. IT appears on examination of all materials before us that difficulties have arisen because there is no published norms or policy of the Government as to allotment of quantity of the BPL wheat to all the mill owners. Apparently it is being done according to discretion of the officer concerned. The principle of equitable distribution is undoubtedly part of fair play and rational action but sometimes equitable distribution does not yield desired result rather it causes injustice and further defeats very object. Particularly in a case of this nature where the supply of district quota is fixed on the one hand and on the other hand eligible flour mill owners are increasing in number, if norms of equitable distribution is followed with the fixed quota of allotment in the district, we think a time will come when no mill owner will be able to survive as supply of quota will decrease systematically with inclusion of new mill owners, because manpower, capital investment and machines installed for special purpose will have to be underutilized and thereby these mill owners will suffer serious loss. IT appears that in aggregate nine mill owners were selected as eligible and according to their milling capacities there was allotment of wheat. However, in view of the judicial order and having found no basis or norms for distribution of quota the Court has to adopt policy of equitable distribution. IT appears that in aggregate nine mill owners were selected as eligible and according to their milling capacities there was allotment of wheat. However, in view of the judicial order and having found no basis or norms for distribution of quota the Court has to adopt policy of equitable distribution. As a result four more mill owners have been included to allot wheat curtailing the quota of existing eligible mill owners. Sweeping direction to allot wheat to all the mill owners whosoever apply on the norms of equitable distribution without there being corresponding increase of quantity of supply of BPL wheat in the district, will invite ultimately administrative chaos vis-a-vis question of survival of flour mills set up for the purpose in the district. The learned trial Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter. In our view order and direction of the learned trial Judge has invited unhealthy and unfair tendency if not tact, of extracting more supply of wheat of the mill owners by either installing second unit or increasing milling capacity. IT appears that while following the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge the department had to accommodate the four more mill owners curtailing quota of existing mill owners. Under these circumstances, equitable distribution policy should be applied in an objective manner so that the very purpose for granting of BPL wheat and distribution of fortified Ata is served with avowed scheme and at the same time the mill owners are not to face any running and working problem because of inadequate supply of BPL wheat as those mills are equipped for this very specific purpose acting upon the stipulation as mentioned in the guidelines. We, therefore, direct that Principal Secretary to the Department concerned to reexamine this matter inviting all the mill owners who have already been selected, for interaction. While doing so the officer concerned shall take into consideration of minimum requirement of stock of mill/chakki owners for their meaningful survival. We are of the view if the department feels that until and unless the district quota of BPL wheat is increased by the Government, other mill owners could not be selected or included in the list, he will be free to take such decision. This reconsideration may be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. This reconsideration may be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The existing policy taken pursuant to the decision of the learned Trial Judge till then will be valid. However the moment fresh decision is taken with any change or variation in the policy stipulating the norms for allotment of BPL wheat of eligible mill owners, such changed decision will be followed. The aforesaid time limit of eight weeks is firm and mandatory. Thus the appeal is disposed of. The order passed by the department pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge will stand recalled as we have already observed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has seriously affected the right of the appellant and that in view of above direction further upsetting the reasoned order of Director is not warranted.