JUDGMENT : Tapash Mookherjee, J. 1. The jute used to be known as the “Golden Fibre” at one point of time. The jute industry was a robust industry having huge contributions to the economic growth of the Eastern part of the country, particularly in West Bengal. The major jute growing areas are located in West Bengal; consequently all major jute mills are also located in West Bengal. But the industry has lost its glory to many extents with the passage of time being confronted by several factors. Jute industry is basically a labour intensive industry and it has a huge potential for employment. It has a very good potential for earning foreign exchange by export also. The industry is under the control of Ministry of Textiles, Union of India. 2. Having realized the importance of the jute industry and the problems being faced by the industry, the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India with a long term vision launched a comprehensive plan for the overall development of the Jute Industry as a whole, starting from the research, development, production and quality improvement of the raw jute to modernization and technological up-gradation of the jute industry, under a scheme named as ‘Jute Technology Mission’. The said overall mission is classified under four Mini-Missions. 3. The present Writ Petition relates to the Mini-Mission-IV, the object of which is modernization and technological up-gradation of jute industry and also designing and developing jute diversified products. 4. The jute packaging materials (compulsory use in packaging commodities) Act, 1987 (in short, Packaging Act, 1987) has been enacted for the purpose of protection of the Jute Industry. Similarly Jute and Jute Textile Control Order, 2016 (in short, Control Order, 2016) has been passed for the implementation of the provisions in Packaging Act, 1987. It is also within the power of the Jute Commissioner to control the production of Jute Textiles, to control the price of the Jute Textile and to ensure the quality of the jute products. 5. The Mini-Mission – IV includes a plan for setting up ‘Jute Parks” within which setting up of new small Jute Mills/Spinning Mills/Weaving Units are to be encouraged. 6. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited the Petitioner No.-1 in this case, is the owner of three conventional Jute Mills, all located in the District Hooghly, West Bengal. 7. 5. The Mini-Mission – IV includes a plan for setting up ‘Jute Parks” within which setting up of new small Jute Mills/Spinning Mills/Weaving Units are to be encouraged. 6. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited the Petitioner No.-1 in this case, is the owner of three conventional Jute Mills, all located in the District Hooghly, West Bengal. 7. One Shakatigarh Textile and Industries Limited set up a Jute Park called ‘Shakatigarh Jute Park’ at Shakatigarh in the District of Burdwan under the Mini-Mission- IV of the ‘Jute Technology Mission’. The Petitioner/Company set up a composite jute manufacturing unit as the anchor unit for manufacture of jute textile including traditional jute sacks, like B-Twill/A-Twill bags within the said Shakatigarh jute park. Three other units were also proposed to be set up within the said jute park for manufacture of diversified jute products with the raw-materials to be manufactured by the anchor unit. The Mill of the Petitioner/Company became commercially functional in the year 2013 but by that time the down-stream units within the Jute Park were not completely operational. The Petitioner’s Mill started manufacturing conventional jute bags. The private market for the consumption of such jute bags is very low. The Petitioner/Company, therefore, repeatedly approached the Jute Commissioner for granting P.C.O. (Production Control Order) under Rule 4 of the Jute Control Order, 2016 for the sustenance and survival of their industry within the said jute park. Their case was recommended by the Jute Management Board (J. M. B.) which is the nodal agency for the implementation of the Jute Technology Mission. But the prayer of the Petitioner/Company for P.C.O. was not considered by the Jute Commissioner for some reasons or other. Ultimately the Deputy Jute Commissioner by a letter dated 29th May, 2014 (Annexure P-15) expressed their reluctance to issue P.C.O. in favour of the Petitioner/Company on some grounds stated therein. However, during the pendency of this Writ Petition P.C.Os. were granted in favour of the Petitioner/Company for some limited periods but that too was subsequently stopped. 8. The Petitioner/Company has challenged the legality of the decision taken by the Jute Commissioner expressed in the letter dated 29th May, 2014 mentioned above 9. The main controversy in this Writ Petition is whether or not, the Petitioner is entitled to any P.C.O. for their unit set up within the Jute Park of ‘Shakatigarh Textile and Industries Limited at Barshul, Shaktigarh, within the District Burdwan. The main controversy in this Writ Petition is whether or not, the Petitioner is entitled to any P.C.O. for their unit set up within the Jute Park of ‘Shakatigarh Textile and Industries Limited at Barshul, Shaktigarh, within the District Burdwan. 10. learned Advocate, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the reason for reluctance of the Jute Commissioner to issue any P.C.O. in favour of the Petitioner/Company is mainly based on the ground that the Petitioner/Company being within a Jute Park is different from any other conventional Jute Mill manufacturing jute sacking bags and hence the Petitioner/Company cannot be treated at par with the conventional Jute Mills, established out of any Jute Park under Mini-Mission – IV of the Jute Technology Mission, although nowhere, either in the Jute Technology Mission or Mini-Mission – IV approach papers such a difference is mentioned. So, such differention is totally baseless. He has further submitted that from the project report submitted and approved, as well as from the nature of the plant and machineries purchased by the Petitioner/Company with the financial assistance under the mission, and duly inspected also by the authority concerned, it is quite clear that the purpose of the Petitioner/Company was all along to manufacture conventional jute sacking bags as well as raw-materials for the jute diversified products and so the authorities concerned cannot now say that the Petitioner/Company is not authorized to manufacture any Jute sacking bags. 11. Mr. Mitra has further submitted that one of the reasons for differential treatment to the Petitioner/Company as reveals from the impugned order, dated 29th May, 2014 (Annexure P-15) is that the Petitioner/Company is not entitled to any P.C.O. as no other unit inside any Jute Park has asked for any P.C.O. According to Mr. Mitra, most of the Jute Mills set up within different Jute Parks have not yet become operational and hence they may not have demanded any P.C.O. but that does not mean that the Petitioner/Company does not have any need or cannot demand any P.C.O. It is the further contention of Mr Mitra that the Petitioner/Company is not responsible for the failure of the down-stream units to become operational within the projected period as the down-stream units are different companies although there may be some common shareholders or one or two common directors there. 12. Admittedly the Jute Commissioner issued P.C.Os. 12. Admittedly the Jute Commissioner issued P.C.Os. for some periods during the pendency of this Writ Petition. Mr Mitra has submitted on the point that P.C.O. once issued can be stopped only when there is any situation mentioned in Clause – 8 of the Jute Control Order and that too after notice to the Mill and giving it a reasonable opportunity of hearing. But in the Present case neither their exists any such situation nor any notice has been issued upon the Petitioner/Company before stoppage of P.C.O. So, the action of stoppage of the P.C.O. which amounts to non-issuance of P.C.O. as well, is quite illegal. 13. According to Mr Mitra, the main objects of the Jute Packaging Act as well as Jute Control Order are mainly to protect the interests of all the stake-holders in the Jute Industry. The Jute Technology Mission as well as the Mini-Mission – IV under it, has been introduced for the overall development of the Jute Industry including the employment generation and the protection of the workers in the Jute Industry. The market share of the jute diversified products is very low and the target of the Jute Technology Mission is to increase the market share of the jute diversified products from 8 per cent up to 20 % by phases. So, all the Jute Manufacturing Units wherever it is located is to depend upon the Government supplies through P.C.O. for their survival in the market. There are about 1500 workers employed in the Mill of the Petitioner/Company. So, if P.C.Os. are not issued in favour of the Petitioner/Company as those are issued to any other Jute Mills, then it would be impossible for the Petitioner/Company to survive ultimately. So, the impugned decision of the Jute Commissioner is arbitrary and unreasonable as well. 14. Mr Mitra has also argued that the Petitioner/Company’s Mill is a ‘Jute Mill’ within the definition under Clause – 2 (c) of the Control Order, 2016 and hence according to Rule – 4 of the Control Order, 2016 the Jute Commissioner is under legal obligation to issue P.C.Os. in favour of the Petitioner/Company also. 15. With the submissions mentioned above, Mr Mitra prays for an order setting aside the order of the Jute Commissioner, dated 29th May, 2014 and a direction upon him to issue P.C.Os. in favour of the Petitioner/Company also. 15. With the submissions mentioned above, Mr Mitra prays for an order setting aside the order of the Jute Commissioner, dated 29th May, 2014 and a direction upon him to issue P.C.Os. in favour of the Petitioner/Company applying the criterias which are followed in case of other Jute Mills. 16. In reply to the aforesaid contentions, Mr Kaushik Chanda, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the Jute Commissioner and Deputy Jute Commissioner (Respondents No. 3 and 4) has submitted that issuance of P.C.Os. is within the exclusive discretion of the Jute Commissioner and the Petitioner/Company cannot claim it as a matter of their right and hence, the Writ Petition, as a whole, is not maintainable in law. The next contention of Mr Chanda is that the Petitioner/Company has set up their Jute Mill within a Jute Park under Mini-Mission – IV of the Jute Technology Mission and the primary object of the Mini-Mission – IV is to encourage production of jute diversified products only and not to promote conventional jute sackings bags known as A-Twill and B-Twill which are manufactured by conventional stand-alone Jute Mils. So, if P.C.Os. are issued in favour of the Petitioner/Company then the entire object and purpose of the Jute Technology Mission and Mini-Mission – IV are like to be frustrated. He has further argued that the Petitioner/Company has been allowed to set up their Mill to act as an anchor unit for supply of raw-materials to the down-stream units, within the Jute Park, for manufacturing of Jute diversified products by them and the Petitioner/Company by demanding P.C.Os., is trying to avoid such obligations on their part. 17. It is the further contention of Mr Chanda, that the demand of jute sacking bags for Government supplies is not unlimited. So, P.C.Os. are generally issued in a restricted way according to the demand in the market and when the price of such jute products in the open market is high then the Jute Mills do not ask for any P.C.O. but whenever the price in the open market is low then only the Jute Mills generally demand for P.C.Os. and for such reasons P.C.Os. are issued in a way so, that the continuity of supply and stability of the price is ensured. 18. Mr Chanda has repeatedly argued that if P.C.Os. and for such reasons P.C.Os. are issued in a way so, that the continuity of supply and stability of the price is ensured. 18. Mr Chanda has repeatedly argued that if P.C.Os. are granted in favour of the Petitioner/Company then the lawful need of the conventional Jute Mills manufacturing only Jute sacking bags has to be sacrificed, which is not the policy. He has further submitted that P.C.Os. have been granted in favour of the Petitioner/Company for a limited period during the pendency of the Writ Petition, only to assist the Petitioner/Company in its gestation period, which cannot be allowed to be continued for an indefinite period. So, all actions of the Jute Commissioner are according to the policies in the matter and reasonable and justified, which cannot be challenged in any Writ. 19. Learned Advocate, Mr Basu, appearing for the Unions of India (Respondent No. 1) has supported all the views of Mr Chanda. 20. Learned Advocate, Mr Bandopadhyay, appearing for the National Jute Board, (Respondent No. 2) has submitted that they have no objection if P.C.Os. are issued in favour of the Petitioner/Company. 21. The Petitioner/Company set up a composite Jute Mill inside the Shaktigarh Jute Park under Mini-Mission- IV of the Jute Technology Mission. Clause No. 7.5 (Annexure-P2) of the Mini-Mission – IV lays down the detail scheme of such Jute Parks. 1.2 of the scheme describes the aim of the scheme. According to it, “the aim of the scheme is to attract enterprises/units investing in new small Jute Mills/Spinning Mills/Weaving Units with a view to generate employment/upgrade technology optimize experts based on value addition”. The scheme aims at providing enterprises with support facilities similar to those available in export processing zone. It reveals from it that the main object of the scheme is to generate employment, upgrade technology, optimize experts etc. So, the scheme itself does not say that the Mills set up in a Jute Park should strictly restrict its production to diversified Jute products only. The approach paper of the Jute Technology Mission, as a whole, does not also say that the Mini-Mission – IV is exclusively for the purpose of encouragement for production of jute diversified products only. Undisputedly, the Petitioner/Company’s Jute Mill is a small Jute Mill with upgraded technology set up with the financial support under the Jute Technology Mission – IV. The approach paper of the Jute Technology Mission, as a whole, does not also say that the Mini-Mission – IV is exclusively for the purpose of encouragement for production of jute diversified products only. Undisputedly, the Petitioner/Company’s Jute Mill is a small Jute Mill with upgraded technology set up with the financial support under the Jute Technology Mission – IV. About 1500 workers are employed in the Mill as claimed. So, the Petitioner/Company’s Mill is well covered by Clause-1.2 of the Clause 7.5 of the J. M. D. C. scheme. The object of packaging materials Act, 1987 is to reserve and increase the use of jute packaging materials for packaging food grains. According to the Section 2 (c) of the said Act, jute packaging materials includes jute bags. According to Section 2 (d) of the control order 2016 ‘Jute Textile’ includes Jute bags or sacks. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that the Petitioner/Company’s Mill is not different, in substance, from any other Jute Mills producing jute sacks. 22. Before setting up the Jute Park at Shakatigarh, a detail project report (Annexure P3) was submitted by its promoting company which had been approved by the authority concerned. In the said project report (C. L. 2.1) production of traditional Jute bags has been proposed. The Petitioner/Company purchased plant and machineries with capital subsidy in Mini-Mission - IV. The plant and machineries thus purchased include machineries used for the production of traditional jute sacks. So, the authorities concerned had all along the knowledge that the Petitioner/Company had an aim to produce jute sacks in addition to other products as well, to cater the needs of the down-stream industries within the Park. 23. At present, the market share of the jute diversified products is only 8 per cent and the target of Mini-Mission – IV is to gradually raise it up to 20 per cent. Therefore, it goes without saying that a composite jute industry cannot survive just on the basis of production of raw-materials for the jute diversified products only. In this context it should be further mentioned that the Jute Commissioner in his letter dated 27th October, 2014 (Annexure P26) has expressed a view that the Government is a major buyer of the jute sacks and 85 per cent to 90 per cent of B-Twill sacking is purchased by Government. In this context it should be further mentioned that the Jute Commissioner in his letter dated 27th October, 2014 (Annexure P26) has expressed a view that the Government is a major buyer of the jute sacks and 85 per cent to 90 per cent of B-Twill sacking is purchased by Government. Such view of the Jute Commissioner supports the contention of Mr Mitra that a Jute Mill cannot survive without any Government supplies through P.C.Os. So, if the Petitioner/Company is not allotted any P.C.O. then the running of the Mill may not be economically viable and if the Petitioner/Company’s Mill is closed down then the supply of raw-materials to the down-stream industries within the Jute Park will dry up which will ultimately frustrate the entire objects of the Jute Parks. It has been mentioned earlier that no-where there is any positive restriction against production of conventional jute bags by a composite anchor unit within a Jute Park. 24. Now, let it be seen, as to why the prayer of the Petitioner/Company for P.C.O. is not being considered in spite of repeated representations. The reasons are explained in Para 3. Y and Zaa, Zbb. of the Affidavit-in-Opposition to the Writ Petition by the Respondents No. 3 and 4. 25. In para Y of the Affidavit-in-Opposition of the Respondents No. 3 and 4 it is stated that in the project report the installed capacity of the Petitioner/Company is shown to be 70 MT. But after inspection carried out by N. J. B. it was found that the capacity is 35 MT. So, the actual production capacity of the Petitioner/Company not being finally decided, P.C.O. cannot be granted in favour of them. However, it is also stated that a sizeable portion of the installed capacity has to be used for the jute diversified product units. The fact itself suggests that some portion of the installed capacity of the Petitioner/Company may be used for the production of conventional jute sacks. It would not be out of context to mention that the Petitioner/Company cannot be blamed for non-functioning of the down-stream industries for production of jute diversified products, because such down-stream industries are different companies. The fact that there are some common shareholders or one or two common directors in all those companies does not make any serious difference. It would not be out of context to mention that the Petitioner/Company cannot be blamed for non-functioning of the down-stream industries for production of jute diversified products, because such down-stream industries are different companies. The fact that there are some common shareholders or one or two common directors in all those companies does not make any serious difference. It should be also noted here that some of the down-stream industries have already started functioning but none of them has alleged that they are not getting sufficient raw-material from the anchor unit. 26. In Para – 3. Zbb. of the Affidavit-in-Opposition it is further stated that Government orders are limited. So, if the Petitioner/Company is added in the list, then other Mills which are reeling under excess capacity would be seriously affected which may ultimately lead to layoffs of workers in those Mills. It is not understandable as to why a similar view is not taken in case of the Petitioner/Company also. Moreover, it is not explained as to what will happen when a new conventional Jute Mill is set up in future. 27. The letter dated 29th May, 2014 has been impugned in this Writ Petition. It has been stated therein that the scheme 7.5 of Mini-Mission – IV of Jute Technology Mission have been designed specifically for the development of the jute diversified products. It has been earlier discussed that none of the approach papers of the missions have stated so. It has been further stated that none of the anchor units in any Jute Parks has asked for allocation of P.C.O. for jute sacks and hence the demand of the Petitioner/Company is devoid of any rationality. 28. It has been mentioned in the Writ Petition that out of the nine Jute Parks approved, about five Jute Parks have not been commissioned at all, as yet. Be that as it may, whether any other anchor unit will claim for any P.C.O. is their own business and the Petitioner/Company cannot be denied P.C.O. on such ground. In the impugned order. Information has been sought for from the Petitioner/Company as to when other units within the Jute Park would be adequately functional. As mentioned earlier the other units within the Jute Park are independent companies. So, it is not reasonable to ask the Petitioner/Company to furnish such information. 29. In the impugned order. Information has been sought for from the Petitioner/Company as to when other units within the Jute Park would be adequately functional. As mentioned earlier the other units within the Jute Park are independent companies. So, it is not reasonable to ask the Petitioner/Company to furnish such information. 29. Mr Chanda has submitted that by the impugned letter the Jute Commissioner has not finally rejected the prayer of the Petitioner/Company for P.C.O. and by it some information have been only sought for and so, there is no valid cause of action in the present Writ Petition. But as discussed above the quarries raised in the letter are devoid of any reasonable basis. Be that as it may, during hearing Mr Chanda has repeatedly submitted that no P.C.O. is being granted in favour of the Petitioner/Company as the Petitioner/Company is not entitled to it according to the Mini-Mission- IV. He has further added that granting P.C.O. in favour of the Petitioner/Company will result in deprivation of the right of the conventional Jute Mills for P.C.O. and this is also a reason why P.C.O. is not being granted in favour of the Petitioner/Company. From such submission of Mr Chanda it is clear that the Jute Commissioner has already taken a decision not to grant any P.C.O. in favour of the Petitioner/Company. So, it cannot be said now that the Petitioner/Company has no bona fide cause of action. It should be further mentioned here that the Petitioner/Company has alleged arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the Jute Commissioner and an arbitrary or illegal action of any authority is always subject to judicial scrutiny in a Writ Petition. 30. The Petitioner/Company has been differentiated from the other conventional Jute Mills producing jute sacks without there being any real differentiating factor. In this context, it should be noted that the National Jute Board which was the nodal agency for the implementation of the project, as a whole, in its letter to the Deputy Jute Commissioner, dated, 22nd May, 2014, expressed the view that there was no prescribed limit under the scheme to restrict any unit in producing any product or in selling the excess traditional jute products produced by the Petitioner/Company to maintain the viability of the Jute Park, as a whole. So, the Petitioner/Company is also entitled to P.C.Os. like any other conventional Jute Mill. 31. So, the Petitioner/Company is also entitled to P.C.Os. like any other conventional Jute Mill. 31. All the Jute Mills producing jute sacks are mainly dependent upon P.C.Os. for the marketing of their product as admitted by the Jute Commissioner in their Affidavit-in-Opposition against the Writ Petition (Para 3 (i.). 32. From a letter dated 18th December, 2015 addressed by the Jute Commissioner to the Assistant Secretary (jute) Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, it reveals that the Jute Commissioner took initiative for dilution in packaging of food grains to the extent of 10 per cent and subsequently to the extent of 30 per cent for using alternative packaging material of the total requirement during 2015/2016. It is further stated therein that A.I.J.M.A. (All India Jute Manufacturers Association). Expressed their inability to meet the demand for the Government supplies beyond a certain limit. It cannot be, therefore, said that there is always the crisis for P.C.O. In the circumstances the argument of Mr Chanda that if Petitioner’s Mill is granted P.C.O. then other Jute Mills receiving the P.C.Os. would be deprived of their lawful rights, does not hold good. 33. It was also an argument of Mr Chanda that the Petitioner/Company cannot be allowed any P.C.O. as the production capacity of the Petitioner’s Mill on the basis of which P.C.Os. are allotted cannot be conclusively determined. In this context it should be mentioned that the National Jute Board in its communication dated 22nd May, 2014 to the Jute Commissioner in connection with prayers of the Petitioner/Company stated the following ‘it is, therefore, submitted that it will be difficult in establishing any link between the production capacity, actual production, quantum of J.D.P. production and P.C.Os. being issued by the office of the Jute Commissioner (Page 333 of the Writ Petition)’. Be that as it may, the criteria applied in case of other Jute Mills for granting P.C.Os. may be applied in case of the Petitioner’s Mill also. Moreover, on inspection by the authorities concerned, it has been ascertained that the production capacity of the Petitioner’s Mill is 35 MT per day. So, that capacity may be taken into account until any further inspection to verify the claim of the Petitioner/Company in this regard, is held. 34. As mentioned earlier, P.C.Os. were granted to the Petitioner/Company at one point of time during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. So, that capacity may be taken into account until any further inspection to verify the claim of the Petitioner/Company in this regard, is held. 34. As mentioned earlier, P.C.Os. were granted to the Petitioner/Company at one point of time during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. Mr Chanda has argued that such benefit was given to the Petitioner/Company only to assist them during the Company’s initial period which cannot be continued indefinitely. Clause 8 of the control order 2016 has prescribed the situations under which supply of any Jute Textiles may be prohibited by the Jute Commissioner. The Clause further prescribes that before taking any such punitive action notice has to be served and opportunity of hearing should be given to the Mill before taking any such punitive action. In the present case neither any notice was issued upon the Petitioner/Company nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them before stopping grant of P.C.Os. in their favour. 35. It has also been argued by Mr Chanda that the P.C.Os. were granted earlier to the Petitioner/Company on condition that the Petitioner/Company will not ask for any further P.C.Os. in future and the Petitioner/Company having accepted such condition, cannot demand for further P.C.Os. I find no justification or any legal force behind such contention. 36. To conclude, the decision of the Jute Commissioner not to issue any P.C.O. in favour of the Petitioner/Company is arbitrary, discriminating and against the basic principle of equality. 37. It should be further noted that the settled principle of law is that whenever any discretion is given to any authority such discretion should always be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. But in the present case the Jute Commissioner has failed to exercise his discretion judiciously. 38. So, in view of the observations and findings above, the Jute Commissioner is restrained from taking any further action on the basis of his letter dated, 29th May, 2014 (Annexure P 15), impugned in this Writ Petition. The Jute Commissioner is directed to grant P.C.Os. in favour of the Petitioner/Company from the month of January, 2017 and onwards following the criteria applied to any other Jute Mills for the purpose of granting P.C.Os. The Jute Commissioner is directed to grant P.C.Os. in favour of the Petitioner/Company from the month of January, 2017 and onwards following the criteria applied to any other Jute Mills for the purpose of granting P.C.Os. and for such purpose the production capacity of the Petitioner/Company’s Mill be considered as 35 MT per day, for the time being and such capacity may be reviewed on the basis of further inspection by the competent authority for the purpose. The Petitioner/Company is also directed to lend all other assistance in the matter. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. C.A.N. 8959 of 2016 In view of the decisions taken in the Main Writ Petition no separate order is called for in this Application. The Application is accordingly disposed of.