JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Th. Sobhana Devi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri S. Rupachandra, ASG for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner has filed the above petition praying for grant of Transport subsidy/financial assistance/grant to the members of the Association at par with the institutional dealer headed by the Director of Agriculture, Manipur. The facts in brief are as under- 3. According to the petitioner association, the petitioner is an Association registered under the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 consisting of 35 members who are the Fertilizer Dealers of the Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), Namrup, Assam. The members of the petitioner's association are also given Dealership Licences by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Manipur for selling fertilizer in wholesale rate in different parts of the State. The members of the petitioner association were earlier granted transport subsidy/financial assistance by the State Government so as to enable them to sell fertilizers at the rate fixed by the Government of India. Their licences were renewed from time to time to carry on their business. 4. In the year 2012, since the State Government stopped granting subsidy/financial assistance to its members, the petitioner's association submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Minister of Agriculture, Manipur followed by another representation dated 06-08-2012 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur expressing the compulsion in respect of the payment of certain taxes namely Godown tax, Road tax including demands of various militants. Some of the registered and authorized Agents of the Department of Agriculture, Manipur, who are not the members of the petitioner's association are allowed to buy fertilizers at the subsidized/reduced rate fixed by the Government of Manipur. In a meeting held on 21-12-2012 at the office of the Addl. Secretary (Agriculture), the petitioner association raised the issue but it was decided that the matter for grant of transport subsidy be considered on the basis of a decision of the Government of India. As the State Government failed to grant transport subsidy/finance assistance to the members of the petitioner's association, the petitioner through its President submitted another representation to the respondents on 27-02-2013 highlighting the grievances being faced by the members of the petitioner's association. As the State Government failed to grant transport subsidy/finance assistance to the members of the petitioner's association, the petitioner through its President submitted another representation to the respondents on 27-02-2013 highlighting the grievances being faced by the members of the petitioner's association. In a joint meeting held on 18-03-2013, the Commissioner (Agr.), Government of Manipur persuaded the representatives of the petitioner's association to purchase fertilizer from the Government buffer stock until the Government of India finalized the freight subsidy of transportation of Urea fertilizer. 5. The petitioner's association filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 242 of 2013 praying for grant of transport subsidy/financial assistance to the members of the petitioner's association which was disposed of by the High Court on 02-12-2013 with the direction to the respondents therein to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner's association within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of communication of that order. After having considered the said representation, the Under Secretary (Agriculture) vide its letter dated 07-03-2014 communicated the decision to the petitioner association. Being aggrieved, the petitioner association has filed the present writ petition. 6. The stand of the respondents No. 1 to 3, as reflected in their counter affidavit, is that the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Urea is not fixed by the State Government and it is only notified by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and that in compliance of the order dated 02-12-2013 passed by the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 242 of 2013, the State Government has considered its representation and the decision taken thereon, has already been communicated to the petitioner association. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the members of the association and the Institutional dealers are similarly situated as seen from the registration certificates but the benefits namely subsidy/financial assistance that have been given to the Institutional dealers, were denied to the members of the association. The denial of such benefits to the members of the petitioner association is nothing but the discrimination which is violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The denial of such benefits to the members of the petitioner association is nothing but the discrimination which is violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is further submitted that on account of the subsidy being granted to the Institutional dealer, the rate fixed by the Department is automatically low, as a result the members of the association are unable to carry on the business and have suffered loss. 8. The term 'fertiliser' is defined in Section 2(h) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985. Clause 7 of the said Order, 1985 provides that no person shall sell, offer for sell or carry on the business of selling of fertilizer at any place as wholesale or retail dealer except under and in accordance with Clause 8. Clause 8 provides for a requirement of obtaining certificate of registration by any person who intends to sell or offer for sell or carry on the business of fertilizer. It is evident from one of the proviso to Clause 8 that the State Government also can be an applicant under Clause 8 (1) of this Control order, 1985. Clause 3(1) empowers only the Central Government to fix the maximum price or rates at which any fertilizer may be sold by a dealer, a manufacturer or a pool handling agency. Under sub-clause (2) of Clause 3, the Central may fix different prices or rates for fertilizers keeping in mind the local conditions and other relevant considerations. Since the fertilizer being a controlled item, Clause 3(3) prohibits a dealer, a manufacturer or pool handling agency from selling or offering to make a retail sell exceeding the maximum price or rate fixed by the Central Government. 9. It thus appears that both the private individuals and the State Governments are permitted to get themselves registered under the provisions of Clause 8 for purpose of selling or offering to sell or carrying the business of selling fertilizers. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that there is discrimination between the members of the petitioner association and the Institutional dealers in respect of granting subsidy/financial assistance. The short question which arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the members of the petitioner association and the institutional dealers are similarly situated or not. To examine this, there is no material on record. The short question which arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the members of the petitioner association and the institutional dealers are similarly situated or not. To examine this, there is no material on record. Neither the petitioner association nor the State Government has produced a copy of the details of the policy decision or a scheme by which the benefits of subsidy/financial assistance have been given to the Institutional agencies. In the proceedings of the meeting held on 21-12-2012, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner association, it is only mentioned that the extension of additional fright subsidy for transportation of Urea Fertliser to the dealers is a matter of policy of the State Government. Normally the purpose of such business being undertaken by the State is not to earn profit but in the interest of public whereas the purpose of carrying such business by the private individual is to earn profit for his livelihood. 10. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a copy of the Cabinet decision taken on 18-05-2013 in respect of transport subsidy wherein it is stated that sale from Buffer stock Urea shall be undertaken directly by the Agriculture Department. However, a copy of the cabinet memorandum thereof is not filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 wherefrom the object sought to be achieved by giving subsidy to the Institutional dealers and denying the same to the members of the petitioner association, could be known. The stand of the State Government indicated in the letter dated 07-03-2014 addressed to the petitioner association, is that there is no scheme of Government for additional subsidy to dealers on sale of Urea in the State. So far as the subsidy is concerned, it is stated that it is for the Government of India to provide subsidy on sale of Urea within the country and also to provide freight subsidy on sale of Urea to different parts of the country. Admittedly, it may be for this reason that the Commissioner (Agr.) in the meeting held on 18-03-2013 persuaded the representatives of the petitioner association to purchase Urea fertilizer from the State Government buffer stock at the MRP price instead of lifting from the Corporation until the Government of India finalized freight subsidy of transportation of Urea fertilizer. 11. Admittedly, it may be for this reason that the Commissioner (Agr.) in the meeting held on 18-03-2013 persuaded the representatives of the petitioner association to purchase Urea fertilizer from the State Government buffer stock at the MRP price instead of lifting from the Corporation until the Government of India finalized freight subsidy of transportation of Urea fertilizer. 11. In the absence of materials on record, it is not clear to this court as to what is that subsidy the petitioner association is talking about. Is it the additional subsidy referred to by the respondents No. 1 to 3 in their letter dated 07-03-2014 addressed to the petitioner association wherein it is stated that there is no scheme for providing such additional subsidy. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner association that since the averments made at paragraph 17 onwards of the writ petition are not rebutted by the respondents No. 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit, the same shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents No. 1 to 3. By order dated 24-09-2014 passed by this court, the respondents No. 1 to 3 were directed to file additional affidavit in reply to the said averments at paragraph 17 onwards of the petition and the respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed to file additional affidavit despite number of opportunities being given to them by this court nor have they filed additional documents including a copy of the document by which subsidy is alleged to have been given to the Institutional dealers. On 23-01-2015 when the judgment was reserved after hearing the counsels for the parties on the basis of the materials available on record, a liberty was granted to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to file additional documents, if any, within a week there from. However, it appears that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have not filed any additional document till date. It may be noted that the respondents No. 1 to 3 being the 'State' within the meaning Article 12 of the Constitution, they are expected to act fairly and reasonably. 12. However, it appears that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have not filed any additional document till date. It may be noted that the respondents No. 1 to 3 being the 'State' within the meaning Article 12 of the Constitution, they are expected to act fairly and reasonably. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court has no option but to dispose of the present writ petition with the direction that the respondents No. 1 to 3 shall consider sympathetically the case of the petitioner association, specially in regard to the averments made at paragraph 17 onwards of the petition and if the same are found to be true, take a decision thereby granting subsidy to the members of the petitioner association within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.