ORDER These four writ petitions can be dealt with together and disposed of in view of the common ground covered by them. 2. The petitioners in WP No. 9896 of 2011, and WP No. 16885 of 2011, are essentially challenging the decision taken by the first respondent/State Government through its memo dated 9.11.2010 directing the second respondent/Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, not to issue fresh licences to NPK mixture units in view of the shortage of raw material. The petitioners in WP No. 27353 of 2011 challenge the validity of the directions issued by the second respondent/Commissioner of Agriculture through memo dated 27.6.2011 directing the wholesale dealers of fertilizers not to move the stocks to any other organization/factory other than retail dealers. Petitioners 2 to 9 in WP No. 27405 of 2011, in the company of their Association, the first petitioner, mount a challenge to the series of instructions passed on by the Commissioner of Agriculture, the third respondent therein, to the manufacturers of fertilizers to instruct their wholesale dealers not to allot any fertilizers to other than retail dealers who in turn shall sell them to farmers only. The petitioners assert that they are interested in carrying on business of manufacture and sale of various mixture fertilizers. The petitioners have established industrial units by purchasing the necessary land and equipment and installed the necessary machinery for undertaking manufacture of mixture fertilizer. 3. In accordance with the power conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government made the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, (henceforth referred to as 'FCO') for regulating the supply of fertilizers. Clause 2(h) of the FCO defined the expression 'Fertilizer' as any substance used or intended to be used as a fertilizer of the soil and/or crop and specified in Part A of Schedule I and includes a mixture of fertilizer, special mixture of fertilizers, Bio-fertilizers specified in Schedule III and organic fertilizers specified in Schedule IV and non-edible de-oiled cake fertilizers specified in Schedule V. Similarly, the expression 'mixture of fertilizers' has been defined in Clause 2(n) as a mixture of fertilizers made by physically mixing two or more fertilizes with or without inert material in physical or granular form and includes a mixture of NPK fertilizers, a mixture of micronutrient fertilizers and a mixture of NPK with micro nutrient fertilizers. With a view to control distribution of the fertilizers by the manufacturers/importers, and for securing their equitable distribution and availability of fertilizers to the farmers in time, power is conferred under Clause 6 of the FCO, on the Central Government to direct in manufacturer/importer, by notification in Official Gazette to sell the fertilizers produced by him in such quantities and in such States and within such period as may be specified in the said notification. Thus, power is conferred on the Central Government, to lay-down a policy measure, for securing the equitable distribution of the fertilizers. Every person intended to sell or offer to sell or carrying business of selling of fertilizer as industrial dealer shall obtain a certificate of registration from the Controller by making an application in 'Form A' and enclosing thereto a certificate of source in 'Form O' apart from tendering the fee prescribed there for, in accordance with Clause 8. Clause 8(3) requires the notified authority to issue an acknowledgment of receipt in Form A2 which shall be deemed to be an authorization letter granted. In terms of Clause 9, the Controller was required to grant a certificate of registration in Form-B within thirty days of the receipt of application under Clause 8. As per Clause 10 of the FCO, every certificate of registration granted under Clause 9 and every authorization letter issued under Clause 8 shall, unless renewed, suspended or cancelled, be valid for a period of three years from the date of its issue. Clause 12 required that no person shall carry on the business of preparing any mixture of fertilizers, special mixture of fertilizer, Bio-fertilizer or Organic fertilizer, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a certificate of manufacture granted to him under Clause 15 or 16 of the FCO. Every person desiring to obtain a certificate of manufacture for preparation of any mixture of fertilizer or special mixture of fertilizer shall possess such qualifications as may be prescribed by the State Government for that purpose or shall employ a person possessing such qualification for preparation of such mixture fertilizer and also possess the minimum laboratory facilities as specified in Clause 21A of the FCO. The application for a certificate of manufacture for any mixture fertilizers shall be made in 'Form D', while, for any special mixture it shall be made in 'Form E'. The application for a certificate of manufacture for any mixture fertilizers shall be made in 'Form D', while, for any special mixture it shall be made in 'Form E'. Clause 15 required the registering authority shall, by order in writing, either grant or refuse to grant the certificate of manufacture in respect of any mixture of fertilizer, Bio-fertilizer, Organic fertilizer or special mixture of fertilizers and shall, within forty five days from the date of receipt of the application, furnish to the applicant a copy of the order so passed. Clause 16 enables no certificate of manufacture, in respect of any special mixture of fertilizers, to be granted to an applicant unless he holds a valid certificate of manufacture granted to him under the FCO for any mixture of fertilizers. Importantly, restrictions have been imposed on manufacture, sale and distribution of fertilizers which are not of prescribed standards. Specifications in respect of imported fertilizers, provisional fertilizers and customized fertilizers have been prescribed under Clauses 20, 20A and 20B of the FCO. Clause 35 enabled the Controller by an order made in writing to direct the dealers, manufacturers, importers and pool handling agencies to maintain such books of accounts, records, etcetera, relating to their business in 'Form N' and to submit to such authority, returns and statements in such form and containing such information relating to their business and within such time as may be specified in that order. 4. When the petitioners submitted their applications for obtaining the certificate of manufacture of mixture fertilizers in accordance with Clause 14 of the FCO, they clearly mentioned that the raw material required for manufacture of such mixed fertilizers as Urea, DAP, MOP and SSP. In response thereto, the Commissioner of Agriculture had replied that the allotment of subsidized fertilizers by the Government of India is hardly sufficient to meet the demands of farmers in the State and hence it has become difficult to supply the subsidized fertilizers namely Urea, DAP, MOP and SSP, as raw materials to the mixture fertilizer units and that the existing fertilizer mixture units are producing only 25% of their total production capacity and the Government of Andhra Pradesh has therefore decided not to issue licences to the new mixture fertilizer units in view of shortage of raw materials and hence returned the applications. This decision communicated by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture is in-turn based upon the decision taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in their Memo No. 14251/ Agri. V/A1/2010-2 dated 9.11.2010. Hence these writ petitions are filed challenging the decision taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in their memo dated 9.11.2010 and the follow up action of the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture in returning the applications for grant of certificate of manufacture and other measures adopted to strangulate the raw material availability to petitioners. Through their memo dated 9.11.2010, the State Government tersely informed the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture not to issue fresh licences to new mixture units in view of shortage of raw materials. 5. Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao and Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and Cooperation and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. 6. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the second respondent/Commissioner and Director of Agriculture has no jurisdiction to refuse to issue a certificate of manufacture under Clause 15 of the FCO on the ground of shortage of raw materials. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that, Clause 3 of the FCO enabled the Central Government, with a view to regulate equitable distribution of fertilizers and making fertilizers available at fair prices, by notification in the Official Gazette to fix the market prices or rates at which any fertilizer may be sold by a dealer, manufacturer, importer or a pool handling agency. Further, by virtue of Clause 3(3) of the FCO, no dealer, manufacturer, importer or pool handling agency shall sell or offer for sale any fertilizer at a price exceeding the maximum price or rate so fixed by the Central Government. Thus, the Central Government is the repository of power for fixing the maximum prices or rates at which fertilizers may be sold. But, as of now, no such maximum prices or rates are fixed by the Central Government and consequently, the prices of fertilizers is not a regulated activity. Thus, the Central Government is the repository of power for fixing the maximum prices or rates at which fertilizers may be sold. But, as of now, no such maximum prices or rates are fixed by the Central Government and consequently, the prices of fertilizers is not a regulated activity. Taking into account the availability position of the fertilizers, the Central Government issued telegraphic orders on 25.8.1992, refusing to fix retail prices of certain types of fertilizers and announced that all Phosphatic and Potash fertilizers including complexes as per schedule to the Notification Nos. 50516(E) dated 14.8.1991 and 50125(E) dated 10.2.1992 stand decontrolled. Thus, it is clear that the Government of India decontrolled the Phosphatic and Potash fertilizers as of 25.8.1992 itself and thereafter has not exercised any further control of regulating the prices of such fertilizers. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn my attention to the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers (2006-07) wherein, in Paragraph 1.7 it is recorded, based on the inputs received from Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India, that only 50% of the production of fertilizers is allocated to different States, while the remaining 50% of the production of the fertilizers are left free to be sold by the manufacturers. In Paragraph 1.9 of the said report, it was also noted that, all major fertilizers have been covered under the prices and movement control system till 24.8.1992 and the Government of India was ensuring availability of the fertilizers by making allocation to various States. It was clearly noted in the said report that, all Phosphatic and Potash fertilizers were decontrolled with effect from 25.8.1992 on the recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee. Urea was the only fertilizer left under statutory price and movement control of the Government of India and under the existing arrangements, manufacturers of DAP (Di-Ammonium Phosphate) and all complex fertilizers and SSP are free to sell their material in whichever market place they please and they are free to move them as and when they like. Anyone is free to import DAP and sell it, at any place in India and similarly, Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN), Ammonium Sulphate (AS) and Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate (ASN) were again decontrolled with effect from 10.6.1994 and hence the manufacturers of mixture fertilizers are free to source these raw materials. Anyone is free to import DAP and sell it, at any place in India and similarly, Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN), Ammonium Sulphate (AS) and Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate (ASN) were again decontrolled with effect from 10.6.1994 and hence the manufacturers of mixture fertilizers are free to source these raw materials. Learned Senior Counsel would also draw my attention to the fact that the Government of India, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Department of Fertilizers for the year 2009-10, has stated that, DAP and MOP are the two major decontrolled and decanalyzed fertilizers which may be imported freely. Therefore, contends the learned Senior Counsel that the manufacturers of mixture fertilizer units can obtain raw material for their mixture fertilizers from the open market without in any manner depending upon the allocation of raw material by the State. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn my attention to the specific statement of fact asserted by the petitioner in Paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of WP No. 9896 of 2011 that the first petitioner company will not seek allotment of raw materials from the respondents. It is therefore contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the rejection of the certificate of manufacture to the petitioners by the respondents is contrary to the provisions contained in the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. When the respondents are required to consider and grant the necessary certificate of manufacture, they cannot take a policy decision not to grant any such certificate henceforth on an unjust ground. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that, Urea is still a subsidized fertilizer and the subsidy component is only meant to reach the farmer but not the manufacturing industry and for purpose of securing equitable distribution of all fertilizers, Clauses 3A, 3B and 3C have been introduced in the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973 and thus, it is sought to be ensured that fertilizers are made available only to the farmers. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the allocation of Urea made available to the State is not even sufficient to meet the requirements of the farming community across the breadth and length of the State and hence, the mixture fertilizer manufacturing plants shall not be allowed to tap this precious resource and thus derive the subsidy component thereon which is not intended to be provided to them by the Government. It is also contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that, the twenty mixture fertilizer units established in the State are only able to manufacture upto 25% of their manufacturing capacity. Therefore, the policy decision not to make available further certificates of manufacture is not an unreasonable one and the power of judicial review of any such policy decision is extremely limited. 8. On behalf of the respondents, the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture filed a detailed counter-affidavit and also an additional counter-affidavit. A counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Department of Fertilizers in the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India. 9. It is asserted on behalf of the State that, Urea is a controlled fertilizer which is under price, distribution and movement control through FCO and Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973. Significantly, the State has not denied or disputed that 50% of the production is regulated by way of allocation to various States while leaving the balance 50% production to be sold freely by the manufacturer. Fertilizer production is regulated under Reduction price-cum-subsidy scheme (RPS) administered by Fertilizer Industry Coordination Committee (FICC) to ensure uniform sale price to the farmers and subsidized transportation is undertaken under equated freight scheme for equitable distribution throughout the country. Further, to make fertilizers available at affordable prices throughout the country, a uniform Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is fixed for farmers. The price of the Urea will be monitored by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India, under the FCO. It is further pointed out that the Government of India convenes zonal conferences for agri inputs in Kharif season in February and for Rabi season in September. The fertilizer requirements are assessed and submitted by the respective State Agricultural Departments to the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, well in advance before the zonal conferences take place. The fertilizer allocation and other potential matters are discussed at the zonal conferences and state wise fertilizer allocations are communicated for the respective seasons, Kharif and Rabi. It is also further submitted that, Government of India introduced the policy for New Pricing Scheme (NPS) for Urea manufacturing units with effect from 1.10.2006. The Government of India has also decided to implement certain measures for movement of Urea to district level and below. It is also further submitted that, Government of India introduced the policy for New Pricing Scheme (NPS) for Urea manufacturing units with effect from 1.10.2006. The Government of India has also decided to implement certain measures for movement of Urea to district level and below. Under this measure, States would be required to allocate the entire quantity of planned Urea arrivals comprising of both regulated and deregulated Urea in district wise; month wise and supplier wise. This system is introduced to achieve the objective of adequate and timely availability of Urea at the block level. Further, the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, also introduced web based Fertilizers Monitoring System (FMS) for effective monitoring of movement of various fertilizers. The Department of Agriculture of the State Government, based upon the allotments would prepare month wise, product wise plan for Kharif and Rabi seasons and then, district wise and company wise allotments are finalized in consultation with manufacturers/suppliers and the supply plan for each month is uploaded on the Fertilizer Monitoring System (FMS). Based upon these inputs, the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, communicates company wise, product wise allotments to the State. Therefore, it is urged that the Department of Agriculture of the State Government will play an important role in (a) assessment of requirements, (b) preparing product wise movement plan, (c) supply, distribution and monitoring of availability and (d) certification of Phosphatic (P), Potassic (K) and SSP, fertilizers stock receipts, etcetera. Therefore, the responsibility of ensuring fertilizers in time to the needy areas lies with the State Government's Agriculture Department. It is also urged that the Government of India, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers (Fertilizer Movement Scheme) in its notification dated 18.9.2008 authorized the State Government, inter alia to make district wise changes depending upon the requirements, the exigencies, the rainfall pattern or any other reason during the month. It is, therefore, urged that the whole object behind this entire exercise undertaken by the Government of India in coordination with the Department of Agriculture of various States is to ensure availability of fertilizers to farmers at their doorstep and that too at an affordable price for achieving sustainable growth in agricultural sector. It is, therefore, urged that the whole object behind this entire exercise undertaken by the Government of India in coordination with the Department of Agriculture of various States is to ensure availability of fertilizers to farmers at their doorstep and that too at an affordable price for achieving sustainable growth in agricultural sector. It is, therefore, contended that the State Government in the Department of Agriculture is required to monitor the supplies and distribution of fertilizers keeping in view the interests of the farmers which is paramount and hence urged that the State has the power to issue necessary instructions from time to time. It is also further urged that, as per the revised nutrient based subsidy scheme, the distribution and movement of fertilizers along with the import of finished fertilizers, fertilizers inputs and production by indigenous units will continue to be monitored through the online web based Fertilizer Monitoring System (FMS) and 20% of the price decontrolled fertilizer produced/imported in India will continue to be regulated by the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973, to bridge the gap in supplies in underserved areas. As per the communication of the Government of India dated 9.3.2011, the manufacturers of the customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers will be eligible to source subsidized fertilizers from the manufacturers/importers after their receipt in the districts as inputs for manufacturing customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers for agricultural purpose. There would be no separate subsidy on the sale of the customized fertilizers and mixed fertilizers. It is, therefore, urged by the respondents that the manufacturers of mixed fertilizers will be able to source the subsidized fertilizers either from the manufacturers or importers after their receipt in the districts and hence the State Government in its Agriculture Department is more concerned to make available the fertilizers at each district level only to the farmers rather than to make it available to the manufacturers of mixed fertilizers. It is contended that, due to increase/creation of irrigation potential by about 8 lakh hectares and also due to change in the cropping pattern, there was a phenomenal increase in the fertilizer consumption in the State. Though the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, has been increasing the quantities of allotments of fertilizers over the past few years, but nonetheless, the allotments are far less than the quantities requested for meeting the primary objective of supply to farmers. Though the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, has been increasing the quantities of allotments of fertilizers over the past few years, but nonetheless, the allotments are far less than the quantities requested for meeting the primary objective of supply to farmers. Consequently, the allotment of fertilizers by the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, are hardly sufficient to meet the primary requirement of making it available to the farmers. As the allotment of Urea, DAP and MOP to the State Government by the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India is hardly sufficient to make the primary requirements, it is not possible to allocate raw materials to the manufacturers of mixed fertilizer units and hence the Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken a policy decision not to issue fresh licences to the manufacturers of mixed fertilizers. In view of that policy decision, the second respondent/Commissioner of Agriculture is justified in returning the applications of the petitioners for grant of the certificate of manufacture. It was also urged that, use of mixed fertilizers would result in increased cost of cultivation inasmuch as, the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of mixed fertilizers is bound to be more than the prices of complex fertilizers and consequently, the choice of the average farmer would only be in favour of purchasing complex fertilizer rather than go for mixture fertilizer and this could be the reason why the existing 20 industrial units which manufacture mixture fertilizers are producing upto only 25% of their total production capacity. 10. It was also urged that, the Central Government made certain amendments to the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973, by introducing Clauses 3A, 3B and 3C through an amendment brought into force on 16.7.2010. As per Clause 3B of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, the Department of Fertilizer, Government of India, shall continue to draw supply plan of all the fertilizers including Phosphatic and Potassic, in consultation with the manufacturers and importers of finished fertilizers and continue to convey the supply plan agreed upon by manufacturers and importers of fertilizers and supplies are allocated to the respective State Governments on month to month basis. It is further urged that, as per Clause 3C of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, it is provided that in addition to 50% of indigenous production of Urea, 20% of the Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers produced or imported in India shall continue to be regulated by Clause 6 of the FCO, 1985. It is urged that these restrictions were imposed on the movement of fertilizers for securing equitable distribution and prevent artificial demand or scarcity in the districts. Further, as the secondary manufacturers, such as the mixture fertilizer manufacturing units, source their raw material as subsidized Urea from the manufacturers and wholesale dealers even before the requirement of farmers are met with, the farmers are deprived of adequate availability of fertilizers and consequently, situations are created leading to otherwise avoidable agitations. Ultimately, for want of adequate quantity of subsidized complex fertilizers, the farmers will be left with not much of an option except to purchase mixed fertilizers manufactured by using subsidized fertilizers and that too at a price which is nearly double the rate of complex fertilizers, thus increasing the cost of agricultural production and consequently resulting in dissatisfaction of low productivity. The respondents have concluded that, since the manufacturers of mixed fertilizers source their raw material at the district level by tapping the subsidized fertilizers, the respondents are justified in their policy decision to prevent any further addition to the list of manufacturers of mixed fertilizers. 11. In the additional counter-affidavit, it was brought out that the Government of India extends subsidies on fertilizer products to the order of about Rs. 60,000 crores, with a view to make them available to the farmers at affordable prices. To encourage balanced fertilizer usage, Nutrient Based System (NBS) Policy was introduced by the Government of India with effect from 1.4.2010 and under this policy, fixed subsidy is extended on Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers and the manufacturers are allowed to fix the maximum retail price on Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers depending upon the cost of raw materials and finished goods in the international market. It is further urged that, in terms of Clause 3B of the amended Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, the supply plan of all fertilizers would continue to be drawn by the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, in consultation. It is further urged that, in terms of Clause 3B of the amended Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, the supply plan of all fertilizers would continue to be drawn by the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, in consultation. with the manufacturers and importers of finished fertilizers and as agreed by the suppliers, the Department of Fertilizers would convey the supply plan to the respective State Government on month to month basis. The object behind drawing supply plans and conveying it to various States is to ensure that all the State Governments get fertilizers as per the requirements projected by them through the State Governments Department of Agriculture. Once the supply plans are drawn and conveyed by the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, to the State Government, it is the responsibility of the State Government to oversee its distribution within the State and to monitor their supplies. It is also further urged that, since Clause 3C of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order did not use the expression 'decontrolled', any such interpretation would totally destroy the policy of the Government of India to make available subsidized Urea to the farmers in terms of Clauses 3A and 3B of the said order. It is hence urged that, once the supply plans are indicated and conveyed finally to the State Governments, the distribution within the State purely rests with the State Governments. Allocation of finished fertilizers within the supply plan of a particular State, to the direct agricultural use, i.e., for the benefit of the farming community directly and to NPK mixture plants or for customized fertilizer plants, etcetera, is purely the prerogative of the State Government, as clarified by the Government of India in their letter dated 16.9.2010. The additional counter-affidavit further sets out that discussions were held with the Secretary, Department of Fertilizers and Joint Secretary, Department of Fertilizers, Government of India on 25.2.2010 wherein, it is categorically assured that the Government of India have 100% control over the fertilizers and movement of 50% of the Urea, as indicated in Clause 3C of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order is regulated to meet the exigencies and cater to the needs of underserved areas and hence the policy decision not to allow new NPK mixture manufacturers is just and sound. 12. 12. On behalf of the Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemicals, Government of India, a counter-affidavit has been filed in the matter Paragraph 3 thereof, reads as under: "3. It is submitted that under the NBS Policy, Manufacturers of customized and mixture fertilizers are allowed to source subsidized fertilizers from the manufacturers/importers after their receipt in the districts as inputs for manufacturing customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers for agricultural purpose. However, there would be no separate subsidy on sale of customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers. The respective State Governments will allot required quantities out of the Supply plan to mixture units, if they desire so based on fanner needs." (Emphasis is mine) 13. It is urged that, in terms of Clause 2 of Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973, read with Clause 3A thereof clarifies that, movement, production and availability of fertilizers is monitored through online web based Fertilizer Monitoring System (FMS) maintained by the Department of Fertilizers. Thereafter, in Paragraph 6 of the said counter-affidavit, this is what has been urged therein: "6. It is submitted that the Para 3C specified that 50% of the Urea is under the Statutory Movement Control of the Government of India and balance 50%, as a part of supply plan mutually agreed upon by Government and manufacturer. In case of P&K fertilizers, the 20% of the fertilizers produced and imported in India is regulated as per Clause 6 of Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 and Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973 and Essential Commodity Act 1955. Thereby, implying that for the 20% P&K fertilizers, the Department of Fertilizers has right to direct the companies in order to serve the remote- and difficult areas in various States." In Paragraph 7, the philosophy behind drawing the supply plan has been spelt out in the following terms: ".............. The philosophy behind drawing supply plan and conveying to the various States is to ensure that all the State Governments get fertilizers as per requirement projected by the respective States through Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India. Once the supply plans are drawn and conveyed to the State Governments and dispatched to the district, it is the responsibility of the State Government to monitor availability/supplies are done as per requirements of each district/ bloc. Once the supply plans are drawn and conveyed to the State Governments and dispatched to the district, it is the responsibility of the State Government to monitor availability/supplies are done as per requirements of each district/ bloc. All the fertilizers be it indigenous or imported are drawn in to supply plan and hence there is no other subsidized fertilizer available over and above the supply plan. No mixture unit can source fertilizer for manufacture without the consent of the State Government." (emphasis is mine) In Paragraph 9, the stand of the Government of India is set out in the following words: "9. It is submitted that under the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985, the manufacture and sale of mixture/customized fertilizers is permitted and governed by the stipulations contained under Clauses 12 to 18 and 38(5) as amended from time to time. The respective State Governments regulate manufacturing technical specifications, grant or refusal of certificate of manufacture for preparation of mixture fertilizers. Based on specific soil and crop requirements, respective State Governments approve different grades of mixture /customized fertilizers produced out of the straight subsidized fertilizers." 14. The learned Additional Advocate General has reiterated the various grounds urged in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents 1 and 2, and the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India. Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the scope of judicial review of a policy decision is extremely limited and unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate breach of any principles of law or the fundamental rights guaranteed to it in the process, the policy measure of the State should not be interdicted lightly. He has placed reliance upon various decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his plea, which will be adverted to a little later on. 15. The entire issue centers around the right of the State Government to prevent a new mixture fertilizer manufacturing plant to come up in the State, in view of supply plans drawn by the Department of Fertilizer, Ministry of Agriculture and Chemicals, Government of India and the legality of the measures adopted by the Commissioner of Agriculture to ensure that the mixture fertilizer plants cannot source their raw material from the open market. 16. Fertilizer continues to be an essential commodity. Hence, to regulate its control, the Central Government made the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. 16. Fertilizer continues to be an essential commodity. Hence, to regulate its control, the Central Government made the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. Earlier thereto, when the Central Government felt it is expedient and necessary, for securing equitable distribution of fertilizers in various States, made the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973, for regulating the movement and distribution of the fertilizers. The Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973, was amended with effect from 16.7.2010 by introducing therein Clauses 3A, 3B and 3C which read as under: "3-A The distribution and movement of fertilizers along with the imports of finished fertilizers, fertilizer inputs and production of indigenous units shall continue to be monitored through online Web Based "Fertilizers Monitoring System." 3-B The department shall continue to draw the supply plan of all the fertilizers including Phosphatic and Potassic in consultation with the manufacturers and importers of finished fertilizers and continue to convey the supply plan, agreed upon by manufacturers and importers of fertilizers and Department of Fertilizers, to the respective State Governments on month to month basis. 3-C In addition to fifty per cent of indigenous production of Urea, twenty per cent of the Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers produced or imported in India shall be regulated under Clause 6 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955." 17. A close scrutiny of the above Clauses clearly brings out that the distribution and movement of indigenously manufactured fertilizers together with the imported fertilizers, continue to be monitored through the online Web Based Fertilizer Movement System (FMS). Further, the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, would draw supply plans of all fertilizers, including Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers in consultation with the manufacturers and importers. After obtaining the consent of the manufacturers and importers, the supply plans will be conveyed by the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India to the respective State Governments on month to month basis. Thus, a plan of action for securing unbroken supply chain of the fertilizers such as Urea, Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers would be put in place in consultation with the manufacturers of the fertilizers and importers, in accordance with the policy decision taken earlier, to leave freedom to the manufacturers of Urea, to the extent of 50% of its production to be sold by such manufacturers freely and similarly the decontrolled Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers. Such a policy measure has not been impacted or altered at any later stage by Government of India. Clause 3C hence uses the expressions 'in addition to' the 50% of indigenous production of Urea, thus conveying unmistakably that out of total indigenous production of Urea, only 50% is regulated. Apart from regulating 50% of Urea produced, according to Clause 3C, 20% of Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers produced or imported in India, shall also be regulated under Clause 6 of the FCO, 1985. Thus, apart from the balance 50% of indigenously manufactured Urea, 80% of Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers manufactured in India or imported into India are left to the discretion of such manufacturers/importers to be sold freely in the open market. The fact that Urea continues to be completely subsidized fertilizer does not make any significant change to the policy of the Government of India to allow 50% of such production of Urea to be sold freely in the market by such manufacturers. 18. It is hardly in doubt that a huge sum of money of more than Rs. 60,000/- crores is annually subsidized by the Central Government with the objective of making available fertilizers at an affordable cost to the farming community. The thrust behind this whopping quantity of subsidy component is to help the farming community to utilize the fertilizers and get profited by undertaking agricultural operations. This measure would not only ensure food security in the country, but would also ensure a reasonable return to the farming community. As per the latest Nutrient Based Subsidy Policy (NBS Policy), which is implemented with effect from 1.4.2010, it was made applicable for Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP), Murate of Potash (MOP), Mono Ammonium Phosphate (MAP), Triple Super Phosphate (TSP), 12 grades of complex fertilizers and Ammonium Sulphate (AS). The primary nutrients namely Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P) and Potassium (K) and nutrient Sulphur (S) contained in the above fertilizers will be eligible for the Nutrient Based Subsidy Policy. The NBS Policy envisages payment for each component of nutrient namely Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium and Sulphur. Most importantly, it is stated in Paragraphs (vi) and (x) of the Government of India, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers communication dated 4.3.2010 as under: "(vi) 20% of the price decontrolled fertilizers produced/imported in India will now be in the movement control under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (ECA). Most importantly, it is stated in Paragraphs (vi) and (x) of the Government of India, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers communication dated 4.3.2010 as under: "(vi) 20% of the price decontrolled fertilizers produced/imported in India will now be in the movement control under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (ECA). Department of Fertilizers will regulate the movement of these fertilizers to bridge the supplies in underserved areas. (x) Manufacturers of customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers will be eligible to source subsidized fertilizers from the manufacturers/importers after their receipt in the districts as inputs for manufacturing customized fertilizers and mixed fertilizers for agricultural purpose. There would be no separate subsidy on sale of customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers." When the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh took up the matter with the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India, it was conveyed on 16.9.2010 by the Government of India, Department of Fertilizers that the distribution within the State and inter se allocation for direct agriculture use and mixture manufacturing units is the prerogative of the concerned State Government based on the ground realities and hence appropriate action can be taken accordingly. The Department of Fertilizers, Government of India while communicating the guidelines for implementation of Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) Policy for Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers with effect from 1.4.2011 through their communication dated 9.3.2011, reiterated in 'Paragraph 13 thereof as under: "13. Manufacturers of customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers will be eligible to source subsidized fertilizers from the manufacturers/importers after their receipt in the districts as inputs for manufacturing customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers for agricultural purpose. There would be no separate subsidy on sale of customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers." 19. From this material, it becomes imminently clear that 50% of the Urea manufactured in India is alone regulated or controlled. The other 50% is permitted by the manufacturers to be sold as desired by them. The entire quantity of Urea manufactured is subsidized. That is the reason why the Department of Fertilizer, Government of India has been making the position clear even as lately as on 9.3.2011 that manufacturers of customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers are eligible to source subsidized fertilizers from the manufacturers/importers after their receipt in the districts as inputs for manufacturing customized fertilizers and mixed fertilizers for agricultural purpose. That is the reason why the Department of Fertilizer, Government of India has been making the position clear even as lately as on 9.3.2011 that manufacturers of customized fertilizers and mixture fertilizers are eligible to source subsidized fertilizers from the manufacturers/importers after their receipt in the districts as inputs for manufacturing customized fertilizers and mixed fertilizers for agricultural purpose. This is the reason why no separate subsidy on the sale of customized fertilizers and mixed fertilizers is allowed by the Government of India. The significance of this decision of the Ministry of Fertilizer, in my opinion, has two components. The first is, manufacturers of customized fertilizers or mixed fertilizers are entitled to source their raw material at the district level from the manufacturers/importers of the fertilizers. The second is, since the raw material is already subsidized, the finished products namely either customized fertilizers or mixed fertilizers cannot enjoy any further subsidy. This decision of the Government of India cannot be read to mean or convey that, no further manufacturing unit of a customized fertilizer or a mixture fertilizer shall be permitted to be established. All that the decision of the Government of India did say was, it left the choice to the State Government to regulate the exercise appropriately. In this backdrop, the notion of State Government not to allow any further establishment of mixture fertilizer plants has got to be tested. 20. Fertilizers manufactured in our country are subsidized essential commodities. They are obviously intended for achieving larger public good namely ensuring food security and simultaneously providing for adequate margin/returns for the farming community. With the ever increasing population, one of the primary objectives of the State would be to ensure food security. Farming, as an enterprise must be made attractive and also simultaneously leave for adequate scope for encouragement. Vast tracts of cultivable lands cannot be left uncared for. Therefore, the farming community must be induced into take agricultural operations. One such measure of encouragement was by providing for input subsidies in the form of subsidies on seeds, pesticides and fertilizers. With the increased productivity, then, there would be enough margin between the costs of cultivation and the net result of realization by sale of agricultural produce. Then alone, the farming community would be willing to work hard, day and night and through rain and shine. With the increased productivity, then, there would be enough margin between the costs of cultivation and the net result of realization by sale of agricultural produce. Then alone, the farming community would be willing to work hard, day and night and through rain and shine. Preventing new industrial establishments to carry forward manufacturing of customized fertilizers or mixed fertilizers is not an answer at all to maintain the profitability margin of the fanning community. To plug the deficiency between demand for the fertilizer and its ultimate supply, the State Government's bother appears to be riveted around the fact that the Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India, has not been allocating the required quantities of fertilizers match to the assessment of the State Government. In the matter of equitable distribution, of fertilizers amongst various States, the Government of India is obviously supplying/allocating less quantities of fertilizers than required by each State Government. This could, possible be because of the arrangement which the Government of India made with the manufacturers of fertilizers. Obviously, the Government of India also wanted to leave the industrial entrepreneurs of fertilizer manufacturers, the freedom to sell certain portion or percentage of their manufactured fertilizers in the open market, while the remaining manufactured percentages are compelled to be supplied to the respective States. In these dynamic complexities, the State Government was not able to secure allocation of sufficient quantities of fertilizers as demanded by. As an off-shoot of its failure to secure complete or satisfactory quantities of allocation, the State Government has fallen on a defensive mechanism to stop the new mixture fertilizer plants from coming up. In my opinion, the choice exercised by the State in this regard is worse than the disease. It could have been entirely different matter for the State, while granting the necessary certification for establishing new mixture plant units to order that they secure their raw material directly from the manufacturers, instead of tapping from the quantities of fertilizers allocated to it by the Department of Fertilizer, Government of India. There is enough provision in the FCO, 1985, (Clause 35) for the State Government and its officials in the Agriculture Department to ensure that the fertilizers allocated to the State under Clause 2A of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973, under the web based Fertilizer Monitoring System (FMS), are not tapped by the mixture fertilizer manufacturing plants. There is enough provision in the FCO, 1985, (Clause 35) for the State Government and its officials in the Agriculture Department to ensure that the fertilizers allocated to the State under Clause 2A of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973, under the web based Fertilizer Monitoring System (FMS), are not tapped by the mixture fertilizer manufacturing plants. Further, the petitioners have clearly made out that, they are not seeking any allocation of their raw material from the State" Government. In other words, if they get their raw materials supplied directly by the manufacturers of the fertilizers themselves, the State Government cannot have any grievance in that regard. 21. It is also sought to be made out that, the existing 20 mixture fertilizer manufacturing units are producing mixed fertilizers only to the extent of 25% of their installed capacity. Such a bleak scenario need not necessarily reflect in lack of resources. It could be because of difficult marketability conditions as well and also could be because of stiff market conditions. As could easily be made out from the counter-affidavits, the cost of mixed fertilizers is definitely higher than the other complex fertilizers made available to the State under the web based Fertilizer Monitoring System (FMS) by the Department of Fertilizer, Government of India. Therefore, there may not be many who will be having the capacity to spend in buying the fertilizer at a higher price. Just because of the plant capacity, no manufacturer will produce the products, which have a shelf life, without any regard for the market conditions. Therefore, to my mind, the failure of the existing mixed fertilizer plants in producing to their optimum capacity cannot be a justifiable reason at all for denying a new unit to be established altogether. The policy decision and the follow up return/rejection of the applications made by the petitioners for establishing the new industrial plants for manufacturing mixed fertilizers is clearly lacking a valid substratum. 22. Clause 12 of the FCO, 1985, puts an embargo upon carrying on the business of preparing any mixture of fertilizers except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a certificate of manufacture granted to him under Clause 15 or 16 of the FCO, 1985. 22. Clause 12 of the FCO, 1985, puts an embargo upon carrying on the business of preparing any mixture of fertilizers except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a certificate of manufacture granted to him under Clause 15 or 16 of the FCO, 1985. Upon receipt of an application under Clause 14, the registering authority was required to pass an order in writing either granting or refusing to grant the certificate of manufacture in respect of any mixed fertilizer and he shall do so within forty five days from the date of receipt of the application. Conceivably, an application made under Clause 14 of the FCO, 1985 can be refused, but however, such refusal must be based upon valid and sustainable reasons. The reasons cannot be fanciful or whimsical. In the instant case, a policy decision has been taken not to grant the certificate of manufacturing to any new entrepreneur. Such refusal is not based upon the assessment of the merits of the claim. It is in fact, blind to such an assessment. As a rule of thumb, the State of Andhra Pradesh now decided to refuse to grant the certificate of manufacture to one and all irrespective of the merit behind the claim. While the concern" of the State of Andhra Pradesh that it must meet the needs of the farming community by making available adequate quantities of fertilizers cannot be taken exception to, but, at the same time, its apprehension that the new manufacturing units will be cutting into or tapping the supplies made available by the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India to the State of Andhra Pradesh, is totally a misplaced one. In fact, the industrial entrepreneurs of mixed fertilizers can resource their raw material directly from the manufacturer who has been left the necessary freedom in terms of Clause 6 of the FCO, by the Government of India to sell a certain percentage of its manufactured products in the open market. This apart, any person may sell any fertilizer which is not an adulterated fertilizer but, it does not confirm to the prescribed standard, i.e., nonstandard fertilizer to manufacturers of mixtures of fertilizers. It is no doubt, that this activity is completely regulated in accordance with Clause 23 of the FCO. This apart, any person may sell any fertilizer which is not an adulterated fertilizer but, it does not confirm to the prescribed standard, i.e., nonstandard fertilizer to manufacturers of mixtures of fertilizers. It is no doubt, that this activity is completely regulated in accordance with Clause 23 of the FCO. Therefore, to my mind, the policy decision of the State of Andhra Pradesh not to allow any new manufacturer of mixed fertilizers to come up is clearly unsustainable. 23. I am conscious that, Courts cannot dictate what better a policy would suit the requirements of the society. The assessment has to be made in that regard entirely by the State Government. Courts are also not supposed to suggest what better policy must be adopted by the State. 24. In Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106 , the Supreme Court cautioned that, while considering a policy decision of the State, the Court cannot be propelled into the un-chartered ocean of Government policy. In R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138 , the Supreme Court cautioned that, every legislation particularly in economic matters, is essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial and error method and therefore it cannot provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses. The inspiration for setting out this principle has flowed from the views expressed by Justice Frankfurter in Morey v. Doud, (1957) 354 US 457, to the following effect: "In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. The Legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. The Courts have only the power to destroy, not to reconstruct. When these are added to the complexity of economic regulation, the uncertainty, the liability to error, the bewildering conflict of the experts, and the number of times the Judges have been overruled by events-self-limitation can be seen to be the path to judicial wisdom and institutional prestige and stability." When called upon to pronounce upon the validity of the import and export policy followed by the Government, the Supreme Court held in Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 465 , that Courts do not possess the necessary expertise and are consequently incompetent to pass judgment on the appropriateness or the adequacy of a particular import policy. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal, AIR 1987 SC 251 , the Supreme Court has approvingly quoted the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court of United States in Metropolis Theatre Company v. State of Chicago, 57 L Ed 730, wherein, it was observed: "We must not forget that in complex economic matters every decision is necessarily empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial and error method and, therefore, its validity cannot be tested on any rigid 'a priori' considerations or on the application of any straightjacket formula. The Court must while adjudging the constitutional validity of any executive decision relating to economic matters grant a certain measure of freedom or 'play' in the 'joints' to the executive". Hence the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision is better. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277 , the policy decision of grouping sugar factories on the basis of their geographical location for fixing prices of levy sugar was challenged. While dismissing the petitions, the Supreme Court noted that, what is best for sugar industry and in what manner the policy should be formulated and implemented, bearing in mind the fundamental object of the statute, viz., supply and equitable distribution of essential commodities at fair prices in the best interest of general public, is a matter for decision exclusively within the province of the Central Government and such matters do not ordinarily attract the power of judicial review. In Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343 , the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India to non-banking companies regarding investment deposits received by such companies and the method of their accounting was considered by the Supreme Court as a policy decision and held that, Court can only strike down some part or the entire directions issued by the Reserve Bank in case the Court is satisfied that the directions were wholly unreasonable or violative of any provisions of the Constitution or any statute. But however, caution was administered by setting out that, it would be hazardous and risky for the Courts to tread an unknown path and should leave such task to the expert bodies. But however, caution was administered by setting out that, it would be hazardous and risky for the Courts to tread an unknown path and should leave such task to the expert bodies. In G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council, AIR 1991 SC 1153 , wherein, the action of the Municipal Council which entered into an agreement with a private builder for construction of a commercial complex, at his expense with liberty later on to deal with a certain portion thereof on his own, the Supreme Court held that such a decision amounted to a policy decision. The Supreme Court went on to add that, unless such a decision violates constitutional or legal limits on power or have demonstrable pejorative environmental implications or amount to clear abuse of power, the Court should stay away from exercising power of judicial review. After reviewing the legal principles, in Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation, AIR 2001 SC 3887 , the Supreme Court concluded that any decision, be it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision, if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. If it is so, then be it a policy decision or otherwise, it will be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 25. A policy choice is the one selected by the State, taking into account and consideration all prevailing factors and circumstances. But however, no policy can be taken by the State contrary to the requirements of law or in transgression of the obligations cast on the State by a statutory provision. 26. While the Government of India has the power under Clause 6 of FCO, 1985, read with Clauses 3A, 3B and 3C of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, to control and regulate the movement of fertilizers, but however, it has not exercised any such control declaring that 100% of Urea indigenously produced shall be made available by the manufacturers to form part of the supply plan to be drawn by it. The Government of India has exercised its choice only to the extent of 50% of indigenously manufactured Urea and 20% of Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers manufactured or imported into India for purposes of making them part of the new web based Fertilizer Movement System (FMS). The Government of India has exercised its choice only to the extent of 50% of indigenously manufactured Urea and 20% of Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers manufactured or imported into India for purposes of making them part of the new web based Fertilizer Movement System (FMS). Leaving 50% of the Urea indigenously manufactured and 80% of Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers manufactured/imported into India are to be made available freely by such manufacturers And hence, the manufacturers of mixed fertilizers can thus source their raw material from this 50% of Urea and 80% of Phosphatic and Potassic fertilizers from their respective manufacturers. The State therefore cannot take a policy decision to the contra. That would be an illegal exercise of power. To my mind, it is much worse for a subordinate agency of the State like the Commissioner of Agriculture issuing instructions to the manufacturers of fertilizers and/or their wholesale/retail dealers not to allow the fertilizers to be picked up by the mixed fertilizer plants. 27. Retention of power to accord permission for granting certificate of manufacture to a mixed fertilizer plant is not the same as a decision not to allow one to come up in the State at all. Not to allow a unit to be established signifies the total denial to consider each application on its merits. I am, therefore, convinced that the decision of the State Government is in transgression of the obligations cast on it to consider the application received by it under Clause 14 of the FCO, 1985. Therefore, the policy decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh is illegal and is not sustainable. Consequently, I have no hesitation to hold that the directives/instructions passed on by the Commissioner of Agriculture to strangulate the availability of raw materials to the mixed fertilizer plants is without any authority of law. 28. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and others v. Gopinath Dash and others, 2006 (2) ALD (Crt.) 73 (SC) = AIR 2006 SC 651 , wherein, the policy decision of the State in the matter of allotment of quarters on rotational basis to the armed police personnel for a minimum period of three years has been interfered with by the High Court. Reversing the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that the correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision making, taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigations. The learned Additional Advocate General has commended for acceptance, the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India and others, (2009) 7 SCC 561 , wherein, the Supreme Court has held that in a matter of policy decision and economic decisions, the scope of judicial review is very limited. It is most important to notice what has been held thereafter in Paragraph 167 of the said judgment, as under: “Unless the decision is shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution the Court would not interfere with an economic decision taken by the State.” As was already pointed out supra, the policy decision taken by the State Government in the instant case is contrary to Clause 14 read with Clauses 15 and 16 of FCO, 1985. The learned Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437 , in Paragraph 17, it has been held as under: "17. The Courts as observed in G.B. Mahajan v. Jalagaon Municipal Council (supra), are kept out of the lush field of administrative policy except where a policy is inconsistent with the express or implied provision of a statute which creates the power to which the policy relates or where a decision made in purported exercise of power is such that a repository of the power acting reasonably and in good faith could not have made it........." 29. Since I have arrived at a finding that the policy decision of the State Government is contrary to the provisions contained in FCO, 1985, these decisions are of not much help to the cause of the State. 30. These writ petitions are, hence, allowed. The policy decision announced by the State Government through their memo dated 9.11.2010 is unsustainable. The various directives and instructions passed on by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture to the manufacturers of fertilizers, wholesale/retail dealers not to supply/allocate fertilizers to mixture fertilizer plants is without any authority of law. 30. These writ petitions are, hence, allowed. The policy decision announced by the State Government through their memo dated 9.11.2010 is unsustainable. The various directives and instructions passed on by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture to the manufacturers of fertilizers, wholesale/retail dealers not to supply/allocate fertilizers to mixture fertilizer plants is without any authority of law. Such of those applications made by the petitioners for grant of a certificate of manufacture will be taken up for reconsideration and appropriate orders will be passed thereon within a maximum period of thirty days. No costs.