JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. After hearing both Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. B.C. Das, the learned Advocate General, Tripura, representing the State-respondents, I am of the considered view that this writ petition can be remanded to the Director of Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism Department and Head of Circulation Committee, Government of Tripura (respondent No. 2) for fresh consideration of the case in accordance with law. 2. But before that, I still think it necessary to refer some of the important facts of the case. The petitioner is the owner, Printer, Publisher and Editor of a local daily, namely, “Dainik Ganadoot”, which is printed and published from Agartala in Bengali language. According to the petitioner, his newspaper is one of the most popular newspaper in Tripura with large circulation. It is his case that its role in enlightening the public opinion against corruption and misrule and its espousal of public cause from time to time ever since its inception in 1968 have incurred the wrath of the State Government. In the advertisement policy notified on 20-11-1985, four classes of publications were envisaged, i.e. (1) Dailies; (2) By-weeklies and Tri-Weeklies; (3) Weeklies and (4) Fortnightlies/Monthlies/Bi-Monthlies and others. Daily newspapers were further categorized into “A” category, “B” category and “C” category in accordance with their circulation, size and pages. For equitable distribution of advertisement to the newspapers, it was provided, inter alia, that a rotation was to be maintained to ensure that the newspapers belonging to category “A” would get 40% of the advertisements. Different rates of payment were also prescribed for different categories of publication in the said advertisement policy. 3. It would appear that the respondent No. 1 issued the Notification dated 29-2-1988 stipulating that pending finalization of the new advertisement policy, the Government would follow the existing Policy Rules subject to directions and observations made by the erstwhile Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 889/1987 and that every effort was to be made to equalize the quantum of advertisement so far issued to the newspapers belonging to “A” category. Rate of display advertisement was also revised by the said notification. In the civil rule in question, the erstwhile Gauhati High Court held that discriminatory allotment of government advertisements to different newspapers of same category would impair freedom of the press. Rate of display advertisement was also revised by the said notification. In the civil rule in question, the erstwhile Gauhati High Court held that discriminatory allotment of government advertisements to different newspapers of same category would impair freedom of the press. “Dainik Ganadoot” was initially categorized as “B” category newspaper and was, thereafter up-graded to an “A” category newspaper with effect from 18-4-1988 on the basis of the Notification dated 18-4-1988 issued by the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Tripura in the Department of ICAT. The respondent No. 1 subsequently by the Notification dated 23-10-1998 published the Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules, 1998 in supersession of the previous advertisement policy and the amendments thereof and the same came into force on 1-12-1998. However, the State-respondents refused to categorize the newspaper of the petitioner as “A-1” under the new Rules and rather categorized it as “A” category, which was not the top most category there under; this amounted to down-gradation of his newspaper. This prompted the petitioner to file W.P.(C) No. 360 of 2000 before this Court, which by the order dated 13-2-2002 passed appropriate directions whereupon the State-respondents provisionally granted A-1 category to his newspaper vide the Memorandum dated 18-5-2002. However, to the consternation of the petitioner, another Notification bearing dated 20-1-2009 was issued by the State-respondents revising the extant advertisement policy in the form of Tripura Advertisement Guidelines, 2009 to be effective from 1-1-2009. By means of this revised policy, the categorization was reverted from four categories to three categories, namely, A, B and C by providing different eligibility criteria for each of the three categories. Due to the protest made by most of newspapers in the State, some changes were made in the revised Guidelines, 2009 by issuing the Notification dated 24-9-2009. The petitioner thereafter applied for categorization of his newspaper in the “A” category, which is the topmost category by submitting the requisite information and documents in accordance with the new Guidelines. The petitioner also submitted therein the certificate of circulation issued by the ABC approved Auditor and the list of sales agents at the District, Sub-Division and Block levels. However, no such categorization was forthcoming despite fulfilling the criteria laid down in the said revised Guidelines; this deprived the newspaper of the advertisement as per its entitlement. The petitioner also submitted therein the certificate of circulation issued by the ABC approved Auditor and the list of sales agents at the District, Sub-Division and Block levels. However, no such categorization was forthcoming despite fulfilling the criteria laid down in the said revised Guidelines; this deprived the newspaper of the advertisement as per its entitlement. On the contrary, he received the letter dated 5-11-2009 from the respondent No. 3 informing him that his newspaper had been downgraded to category-B from his earlier status as category A-1. The representation made by him to the State-respondents to restore his newspaper to A-1 category by his letter dated 24-3-2010 was replied by the respondent No. 2 in his communication dated 9-4-2010 informing him that the Circulation Committee did not recommend the granting of A-category status to his newspaper. On the other hand, the petitioner in the meantime has come to learn that the State-respondents by abuse of power and fraudulently brought the Tripura Edition of Aajkal named “Aajkal Tripura” within the purview of the revised Guidelines and granted it the status of A- category. According to the petitioner, from the little amount of information he managed to obtain through Right to Information Act, 2005, there is no evidence to show that any certificate was issued by the ABC in respect of the circulation of this newspaper from Kolkata indicating that it had a circulation of not less than 15,000 copies in the State of Tripura. Thus, the grant of the status of A-category to Aajkal Tripura is contrary to the revised guidelines and is liable to be cancelled. Such action of the State-respondents is not only arbitrary but is discriminatory against the newspaper of the petitioner; Aajkal Tripura did not and does not fulfil the criteria laid down by the revised guidelines with respect to the number of circulation, the number of authorized sale agents for its enlistment as A-category newspaper. Aggrieved by the hostile treatment meted out to him, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 21-1-2011 to the respondent No. 2 to grant him A-category status to his newspaper and cancel the A-category status granted to Aajkal Tripura as it was illegally granted. Aggrieved by the hostile treatment meted out to him, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 21-1-2011 to the respondent No. 2 to grant him A-category status to his newspaper and cancel the A-category status granted to Aajkal Tripura as it was illegally granted. In reply, the Special Secretary, ICAT Department in his letter dated 2-2-2011 requested the petitioner to submit some documents for up-grading his newspaper oblivious of the fact that all the requisite documents had already been submitted along with his application dated 12-6-2009 submitted by him earlier. The notice of demand for justice issued by him to the respondents No. 1 and 2 on 28-2-2011 requesting them to cancel the status of A-category granted to the Aajkal Tripura and to grant his newspaper the status of A-category was replied by the respondent No. 1 in his letter dated 17-3-2011 wherein he referred to the amendment of the Tripura Advertisement Guidelines (2nd Amendment), 2010, which came into force on 1-9-2010 and informed him that under this new guidelines, new applicants are required to submit a Certificate of Circulation from ABC instead of ABC affiliated CA firm. This, according to the petitioner, is nothing but a futile attempt on the part of the State-respondents to justify their indefensible and discriminatory action. Exasperated by the arbitrariness and blatant discriminatory action of the State-respondents, the petitioner is once again invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court to seek judicial remedy. 4. Prima facie, there is arbitrariness as well as discrimination in the action of the State-respondents in not granting A-category status to the newspaper of the petitioner. It must be recalled that the newspaper of the petitioner was earlier granted A-category under the old policy and A-1 category on the intervention of the Gauhati High Court. When A-category status is granted to Aajkal Tripura, newspaper mostly based in Kolkata, which does not admittedly satisfy the eligibility criteria, as evident from the counter-affidavit of the State-respondents, but is denied to Dainik Ganadoot, the contention of the petitioner deserves serious consideration by this Court. Article 14 guarantees to every person including non-citizens “equality before law and “equal protection of law”. Rule of Law which permeates the entire fabric of the Constitution and indeed forms one of its basic features ecludes arbitrariness. Whenever there is arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is denial of rule of law. Article 14 guarantees to every person including non-citizens “equality before law and “equal protection of law”. Rule of Law which permeates the entire fabric of the Constitution and indeed forms one of its basic features ecludes arbitrariness. Whenever there is arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is denial of rule of law. Article 14 enacts primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness in State action. Equality is antithesis to arbitrariness. An arbitrary act is unequal. Every State action must be non-arbitrary and reasonable as otherwise the Court would strike it down as invalid. To challenge an arbitrary action under Article 14, the petitioner does not have to show that there is someone else similarly situated as he himself or that he has been dissimilarly treated. The Apex Court in A.L. Kalra v. P & E Corpn. Of India Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 316 has observed: “Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in executive/ administrative action because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality. One need not confine the denial of equality to a comparative evaluation between two persons to arrive at a conclusion of discriminatory treatment. An action per se arbitrary itself denies equality of protection of law.” 5. What is the justification of the State-respondents in down-grading the status of Dainik Ganadoot to B-category from A-1 category or in refusing to grant the status of category “A” to this newspaper when it had earlier been granted such status? The contents of paras14, 15 and 17 of their counter are apparently the justification for the impugned action of the State-respondents and the same are reproduced below: “15. That, in reply to the contentions/averments made in Para 8 of the writ petition, it appears that there are some discrepancies about certificates/documents claimed to have been submitted on 12th June, 2009 by the petitioner. Records shows that the petitioner’s letter dated 12th June, 2009 did not enclose the required documents for categorization as per the guidelines of the new policy. For that the Department asked the petitioner to submit the documents in response to that letter the petitioner submitted the documents at a later date i.e. on 30th December, 2009 and not on 12th June, 2009. 17. For that the Department asked the petitioner to submit the documents in response to that letter the petitioner submitted the documents at a later date i.e. on 30th December, 2009 and not on 12th June, 2009. 17. That with reference to the contentions/averments made in Para 11 of the writ petition, I state that it appears from the file correspondence that claimed by the petitioner, he did not request the Department to up-grade his newspaper to A-1 category through a letter dated 24th March, 2010; but request was for up-gradation from B to A category. Subject to verification of certificates submitted by the petitioner’s newspaper with ABC, the Circulation committee did not agree to award A category to the said newspaper as the certificates issued by the firms were different and detailed information were not available. Accordingly, on receipt of request for verification ABC, on 22nd March & 30th March, 2010 clarified that it was not in position to verify certificates issued by those CA firms which are only empanelled with ABC but not members of ABC and the same was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 9th April, 2010 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition).” 6. After hearing Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.C. Das, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents, the question which falls for consideration is whether the grounds taken by the State-respondents in not granting the status of A-category to the newspaper of the petitioner, namely, Dainik Ganadoot is valid in the eye of law? It is well settled that, though the expression 'freedom of press' does not occur in Article 19(1)(a), freedom of Press is a part of the right of free speech and expression and is covered by Article 19(1)(a). Freedom of Press is nothing but an aspect of freedom of speech and expression and is an integral part of free speech and expression 'and is the same right applicable in relation to the press, In this connection it is sufficient to refer to the decisions in Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & others (1972) 2 SCC 788 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 2 SCR 621 . Ltd. v. Union of India & others (1972) 2 SCC 788 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 2 SCR 621 . Further freedom of circulation of newspapers is necessarily involved in freedom of speech and expression and is part, of it and hence enjoys the protection of Article 19(1)(a), vide Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 CriLJ 1514. Discriminatory allotment of Government advertisements to different newspapers of the same category by the State Government will impair the freedom of press and will therefore be violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court again in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 that the effect of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960 was to regulate the number of pages according to the price charged, to prescribed the number of supplements to be published and to prohibit the publication and sale of newspapers in contravention of any Order made under Section 3 of the Act. The Act also provided for regulating by an order under Section 3 the size and area of advertising matter in relation to the other matters contained in a newspaper. It was held that Section 3(1) of the Act in so far it permitted the allocation of space to advertisements, directly affects the freedom of circulation. The Apex Court observed: "If the area for advertisements is curtailed the price of the newspaper will be forced up. If that happens, the circulation will inevitably go down. This would be no remote, but a direct consequence of curtailment of advertisements". 7. The Supreme Court pointed out that the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression would be impinged either by placing restraint upon it directly or by placing restraint upon something which is an essential part of that freedom. The freedom of a newspaper to publish any number of pages or to circulate it to any number of persons is each an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression. A restraint placed upon either of them would be a direct infringement of the right of freedom of speech and expression. 8. In Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd (supra) the petitioners had challenged the Import Policy for Newsprint for the year 1972-73. A restraint placed upon either of them would be a direct infringement of the right of freedom of speech and expression. 8. In Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd (supra) the petitioners had challenged the Import Policy for Newsprint for the year 1972-73. Under the Newsprint Policy no newspaper or new edition could be started by a common ownership unit even within the authorised quota of newsprint. Secondly, there was a limitation of the maximum number of pages to 10. Thirdly no inter-changeability was permitted between different papers of common ownership unit or different editions of the same paper. Fourthly, allowance of 20 per cent increase in page level up to a maximum of 10 has been given to newspapers with less than 10 pages. These restrictions were challenged as constituting infringement of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that the law which lays excessive and prohibitive burden which would restrict the circulation of a newspaper will not be saved by Article19(2). If the area of advertisement is restricted price of paper goes up. If the price goes up circulation will go down. This was held in Sakal Papers case (supra) to be the direct consequence of curtailment of advertisement. The freedom of a newspaper to publish any number of pages or to circulate it to any number of persons has been held by this Court to be an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression. This freedom is violated by placing restraints upon it or by placing restraints upon something which is an essential part of that freedom. A restraint on the number of pages, a restraint on circulation and a restraint on advertisements would affect the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) on the aspect of propagation, publication and circulation. The Supreme Court after considering the various provisions of the Newsprint Import Policy held that the effect and consequence of the impugned policy upon the newspapers is to directly control the growth and circulation of newspapers. It is also observed that the direct effect is that newspapers are deprived of their area of advertisement and exposed to financial loss and hence the direct effect is that freedom of speech and expression is infringed. It is also observed that the direct effect is that newspapers are deprived of their area of advertisement and exposed to financial loss and hence the direct effect is that freedom of speech and expression is infringed. They pointed out that if as a result of restriction on page limit the newspaper will have to sacrifice advertisements and thus weaken the link of financial strength, the organisation may crumble. The loss on advertisements may not only entail the closing down but also affect the circulation and thereby impinge on freedom of speech and expression. It must not be forgotten that the allotment of advertisement to any newspaper is now in the nature of State largesse. I am prepared to hold that the Government is not bound to give advertisements to the petitioner, but then if it decides to do so, the Government must, while giving advertisements to various newspapers, without any discrimination in favour of or against any particular newspaper. In what lawful manner, the benefit of State largesse should be extended is succinctly explained by the Apex Court in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 in the following manner: "The Government is not and should be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largess. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal." The Supreme Court further observed that it must be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant or largess including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences, etc. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant or largess including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences, etc. must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which, in itself, was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. The same view was expressed in E. E. & C. Ltd. v State of Bengal, [1975]2SCR674 where it was argued that the Government has absolute right to enter into a contract with anyone it chooses, the Supreme Court observed that the Government is not like a private individual and can pick and choose a person to whom it will deaf and it cannot, without adequate reason, exclude any person from dealing with it. The activities of the Government have a public element and therefore there should be fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract with anyone but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure. In view of these decisions, the learned Advocate General fairly conceded that it is open to the petitioners to attack the G.O. on the ground of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 9. The underlying principle is that in the course of its administration, the Government realise revenue amounting to crores of rupees. The Government which derives these amounts from the people can use it only for the benefit of the people without any discrimination. The Government is the guardian of the finances and it has a sacred duty to use State funds for the benefit of all concerned. It should not use the large sums in its hands either to favour an individual or a particular group of individuals or refuse to make those funds available on illegitimate grounds. The Government spends a considerable portion of the funds in its hands in paying for Government advertisements. The purpose of issuing advertisements is to educate the public about the activities of the Government, to promote its policies, and in cases where the Government or Government Companies are carrying on business or trade to advertise its wares. The Government spends a considerable portion of the funds in its hands in paying for Government advertisements. The purpose of issuing advertisements is to educate the public about the activities of the Government, to promote its policies, and in cases where the Government or Government Companies are carrying on business or trade to advertise its wares. The Government cannot exercise this power to allot advertisement in order to favour one set of newspapers or to show its displeasure against another section of the press. It should not use the power over such large funds in its hands to muzzle the press or as a weapon to punish newspapers which criticise its policies and actions. It has to use the funds in a reasonable manner consistently with the object of the advertisement viz. to educate and inform the public about the activities of the Government. 10. In the Notification dated 20-1-2009 issued by the Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism Department, the procedure for enlistment of newspapers has been revised and three categories, namely, A, B & C have replaced the previous classification of newspapers, namely, Category ‘A-1’, Category’, Category ‘A’, Category ‘B’ and Category ‘C’. It may be recalled that due to the intervention of this Court, the newspaper of the petitioner came to be categorised as Category ‘A-1’ with effect from 18-5-2002. However, apparently taken advantage of the new advertisement policy of 2009, the newspaper, which had heretofore been categorised as ‘A-1’, was abruptly granted the status of ‘B’ category, which, according to the petitioner, amounts to down-gradation. Clause 9 of Advertisement Guidelines, 2009 deals with up-gradation of newspapers, which read thus: “9. Up-gradation of newspapers: (a) There shall be a Committee, namely, “circulation Committee” headed by the Director, ICAT with the members, namely, i) Labour Commissioner, ii) Deputy Secretary (Law), (iii) Senior Journalist which shall examine and consider the circulation figure of the newspaper and recommend the same to the government. (b) The said Committee will examine the existing newspapers’ circulation level and recommend to the Government for fitting them into the appropriate category of ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. The categorization once given will be valid for two years. However, on request for up-gradation and if and when felt necessary, the Circulation Committee shall take up any case for re-assessment and submit its recommendation to the Government for consideration. The categorization once given will be valid for two years. However, on request for up-gradation and if and when felt necessary, the Circulation Committee shall take up any case for re-assessment and submit its recommendation to the Government for consideration. (c) Certification on circulation would be needed as under: For ‘A’ Category: Certificate issued by ABC or ABC enlisted CA Firm, Printers Certificate, statement of use of newsprint including bills and challans and yearly statement of Audit and Balance sheet. For ‘B’ Category: Certificate issued by CA Firm, Printers’ issued By CA Firm, Printers’ Certificate and yearly statement of Audit and Balance Sheet. For entry into ‘C’: Certificate issued by CA and Printers Certificate. 11. It would appear that in accordance with this Advertisement Guidelines, 2009, the petitioner submitted all necessary information and documents required categorization of his newspaper in Category-A, which as per the said revised Guidelines, has become the highest category. According to the petitioner, he submitted certificate of circulation issued by ABC approved Auditor and all other documents required for the categorization including the list of sales agents at the districts, Sub-Divisions and Block levels, no such categorization was forthcoming. However, much to his consternation, the State-respondents, instead of granting his newspaper the status of ‘A’ category was downgraded to ‘B’’ category from ‘A-1’ category vide the letter dated 5-11-2009 issued by the respondent No. 3. On the other hand, the Tripura edition of Aajkal, namely, Aajkal Tripura, without any certificate of circulation from ABC or without having a circulation of 15,000 copies per day (it has only 7,386 copies per day) was accorded the status of ‘A’ category. This allegation made by the petitioner at paragraph 12 of the writ petition in respect of “Aajkal Tripura” has not been denied by the answering respondent. Moreover, once the newspaper of the petitioner was accorded the status of ‘A-1” category, it has the right to be heard before down-grading its status, more so, when the newspaper has admittedly fulfilled the criteria for its categorization as ‘A’. 12. It would appear that the petitioner has again by his letter dated 21-1-2011 requested the respondent No. 2 to grant his newspaper the status of ‘A’ category and discontinue the status of ‘A’ category granted to ‘Aajkal Tripura’ granted to it most illegally and arbitrarily. 12. It would appear that the petitioner has again by his letter dated 21-1-2011 requested the respondent No. 2 to grant his newspaper the status of ‘A’ category and discontinue the status of ‘A’ category granted to ‘Aajkal Tripura’ granted to it most illegally and arbitrarily. It further appears that the Special Secretary to the Government of Tripura in the ICAT Department by his communication dated 2-2-2011 requested the petitioner to submit relevant documents for up-gradation. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, this betrays non-application and callousness on the part of the state-respondents in considering the case of the petitioner inasmuch as all the requisite documents are already with them. At this stage, it may be noticed that as per Clause 9(c) of the Guidelines, such certificate issued not only by the ABC but also by the ABC enlisted CA firm is enough for the purpose of applying for issue of ‘A’ category newspaper. Therefore, it will not be necessary for the petitioner to obtain such certificate issued only by ABC to apply for the categorization as ‘A’ category newspaper. Needless to say, denial of ‘A’ category status to the newspaper without cogent reason, which I do not find, and according such status to Ajkal Tripura, which indisputably does not fulfill the criteria laid down by the Guidelines, 2009 will be discriminatory and cannot be sustained in law. Moreover, denial of ‘A category status to the newspaper of the petitioner or down-gradation of its status to ‘B’ category will certainly have an impact on the running of the newspaper inasmuch as any cut in its advertisement revenues will result in forcing up the price. If that happens, the circulation will inevitably go down. This would be no remote, but a direct consequence of curtailment of advertisements; the future publication of the newspaper can become unviable; this is one sure way of infringing freedom of the press, which is one of guaranteed fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Under the guise of revising the advertisement policy, the right to receive advertisement from the Government under a particular status cannot be taken away without any rhyme or reason or without giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. This certainly calls for fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner by the State-respondents. Under the guise of revising the advertisement policy, the right to receive advertisement from the Government under a particular status cannot be taken away without any rhyme or reason or without giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. This certainly calls for fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner by the State-respondents. However, when this Court directs the State-respondents to consider afresh the case of the petitioner, they shall have to keep in mind the observations of the Apex Court in AP SRTC and others v. G. Srinivas Reddy and others, (2006) 3 SCC 674 , which read thus: “14. We may, in this context, examine the significance and meaning of a direction given by the court to “consider” a case. When a court directs an authority to “consider”, it requires the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a decision thereon in accordance with law. There is a reason for a large number of writ petitions filed in the High Court’s being disposed of with a direction to “consider” the claim/case/representation of the petitioners in the writ petitions. 15. Where an order or action of the State or an authority is found to be illegal, or in contravention of the prescribed procedure, or in breach of the rules of natural justice, or arbitrary/unreasonable/irrational, or prompted by mala fides or extraneous consideration, or the result of abuse of power, such action is open to judicial review. When the High Court finds that the order or action requires interference and exercises the power of judicial review, thereby resulting in the action/order of the State or authority being quashed, the High Court will not proceed to substitute its own decision in the matter, as that will amount to exercising appellate power, but require the authority to “consider” and decide the matter again. The power of judicial review under Article 226 concentrates and lays emphasis on the decision-making process, rather than the decision itself. 16. The High Court’s also direct the authorities to “consider”, in a different category of cases. Where an authority vested with the power to decide a matter, fails to do so in spite of a request, the person aggrieved approaches the High Court, which in exercise of the power of judicial review, directs the authority to “consider” and decide the matter. The High Court’s also direct the authorities to “consider”, in a different category of cases. Where an authority vested with the power to decide a matter, fails to do so in spite of a request, the person aggrieved approaches the High Court, which in exercise of the power of judicial review, directs the authority to “consider” and decide the matter. In such cases, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court directs “consideration” without examining the facts or the legal questions involved and without recording any findings on the issues. The High Court may also direct the authority to “consider” afresh, where the authority had decided a matter without considering the relevant facts and circumstances, or by taking extraneous or irrelevant matters into consideration. In such cases also, the High Court may not examine the validity or tenability of the claim on merits, but require the authority to do so. 17. Where the High Court finds the decision-making process erroneous and records its findings as to the manner in which the decision should be made, and then directs the authority to “consider” the matter, the authority will have to consider and decide the matter in the light of its findings or observations of the court. But where the High Court without recording any findings, or without expressing any view, merely directs the authority to “consider” the matter, the authority will have to consider the matter in accordance with law, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, its power not being circumscribed by any observations or findings of the court.” 13. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, I dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the question of granting the status of ‘A’ category to the newspaper of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court reproduced elsewhere in this order and take a decision thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. If still aggrieved, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again.