JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order dated 26.03.2018, whereby the petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed. 02. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:- 03. Appellant No. 1, i.e., the Milk Producers Cooperative Marketing Processing Ltd. is a Cooperative Society of Milk Producers, registered under the J&K Self Reliant Cooperatives Act, 1999 and appellant No. 2, i.e., the Jammu & Kashmir Cooperative Union Ltd. (JKCUL) is a society registered under the Jammu & Kashmir Cooperative Societies Act, 1989. 04. The Ministry of Defence is one of the largest procurers of milk and milk products in the country. With a view to ensure supplies to the Army, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide communication dated 17.01.2005 authorized the army to procure their requirement of milk and milk products from National Cooperative Dairy Federation of India (NCDFI)/State Milk Cooperative Federation/Government Milk Schemes. However, in terms of communication dated 13.05.2005, sanction was accorded to the extension of the provisions of the aforesaid letter in the case of Military Farms located in Jammu & Kashmir, J&K Dairy Producers, Processors and Marketing Cooperative Union Limited (JKDCUL) Jammu, a registered Cooperative Society with the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, under the same terms and conditions. 05. Subsequently, communication dated 24.11.2005 was issued to the effect that Cooperative Milk Federations duly recognized by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence and belonging to J&K State, would only be eligible to participate in the tendering for supply of milk and milk products to Military Farms located in Jammu & Kashmir and quantities not supplied through local federation would be sourced from federation/Cooperatives not belonging to Jammu & Kashmir State, who are NCDFI members. Vide another communication dated 21.07.2006, sanction of the President was conveyed to extend the provisions of Government letter dated 17.01.2005 in the case of Military Farms located in Jammu & Kashmir to the Milk Producers Cooperative Marketing and Processing Limited (MPCMPL), under the same terms and conditions. It appears that based upon these communications, the Army used to enter into negotiated contracts for supply of milk and milk products including the appellants. Vide communication dated 10.08.2015, the policy earlier followed was reiterated in regard to the negotiated contracts with NCDFI 06. It appears that based upon these communications, the Army used to enter into negotiated contracts for supply of milk and milk products including the appellants. Vide communication dated 10.08.2015, the policy earlier followed was reiterated in regard to the negotiated contracts with NCDFI 06. Vide communication dated 10.08.2015, the policy earlier followed was reiterated in regard to the negotiated contracts with NCDFI and State Cooperative Milk Federations/NDDB/ J&K Dairy Producers, Processors and Marketing Cooperative Union Limited (JKDCUL) for the State of J&K. According to paragraph 12 of the aforesaid communication, the provisions contained in the letter were to remain valid for a period of three years, w.e.f., 01.10.2015. it was envisaged that the issue would be reviewed thereafter, based on the experience of supply of the organizations mentioned therein, having regard to reliability of supply, reasonableness of rates and the availability of milk and milk products from outside the Cooperative sector. First round of litigation 07. Contrary to the practice earlier adopted in the year 2014, vide communication dated 21.11.2014 tenders were invited for supply of milk from the open market. Being aggrieved OWP No. 1707/2014 was preferred, wherein vide order dated 04.12.2014 operation of the impugned notice dated 21.11.2014 was stayed. Subsequently, it appears that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the impugned communication was withdrawn and a statement was made in that regard in the Court. Thereafter the petition having been rendered infructuous was disposed of. What was stated by the court in the said order dated 29.12.2014 was thus:- “Ld. Counsel for the respondents states that the communication dated 21.11.2014 impugned in the petition stands withdrawn and the respondents have decided not to act upon the communication dated 12.08.2014 and that the grievances set out in the petition therefore stand redressed. It is stated that respondents propose to adhere to the policy adopted by Government of India vide decision dated 13.05.2005 and 24.11.2005, as pleaded by the petitioner. It is stated that in view of the development subsequent to filing of writ petition, the other writ petition titled M/s Milk Producers Cooperative v/s State of J&K and ors., OWP No. 1732/2014 stands withdrawn. Petition in the above background has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. This however shall not allow the respondents to wriggle out of commitments, if any, made to the petitioner and in force, as on date.” 08. Petition in the above background has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. This however shall not allow the respondents to wriggle out of commitments, if any, made to the petitioner and in force, as on date.” 08. In another round of litigation, OWP No. 308/2015 was filed challenging the communication dated 31.01.2015, whereby in addition to the Dairy Milk Federations of State of Jammu & Kashmir, National Cooperative Dairy Federation of India Ltd . (NCDFI) also was notified to participate in the negotiated contract for supply of milk and milk products for the period from 01.03.2015 to 31.09.2015. The Writ Court however vide judgment and order dated 15.04.2015 quashed the said communication, insofar as, it allowed participation of Cooperative Milk Federations from outside the State and issued a direction to the respondents to consider only such societies and federations which belong to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Genesis 09. The genesis of the controversy in the instant case lies in communication dated 12.07.2017, issued by the Ministry of Defence, whereby the eligibility for entering into a contract for supply of fresh milk and other milk products to the Army in the State of Jammu & Kashmir has been restricted only to such Cooperative Milk Societies/Federations belonging to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, who are affiliated to the National Cooperative Dairy Federation of India (NCDFI). Since the entire issue revolves around the aforementioned communication, it will be worthwhile to reproduce paragraph 2 of the said communication, which is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Negotiated contract for supply of milk fresh, butter fresh, paneer and cream fresh shall be for a period of one year. The contract will be concluded at HQ Commands/Corps/Areas only with NCDFI through its cooperatives. In the State of J&K, Cooperative Milk Federations/ Societies affiliated to NCDFI and belonging to J&K State will only be eligible for supply of milk fresh. Quantities not supplied through local federations of NCDFI shall be sourced from NCDFI federations/ cooperatives outside the State of J&K. In Delhi, the Delhi Milk Schemes (DMS) is permitted to participate along with NCDFI/NDDB.” Grounds of challenge before the Writ Court 10. Quantities not supplied through local federations of NCDFI shall be sourced from NCDFI federations/ cooperatives outside the State of J&K. In Delhi, the Delhi Milk Schemes (DMS) is permitted to participate along with NCDFI/NDDB.” Grounds of challenge before the Writ Court 10. The grounds on which the petitioners/appellants herein challenged the communication dated 12.07.2017 before the Writ Court primarily were as follows:- (i) The impugned communication dated 12.07.2017 had the effect of closing the business of the petitioners society and deprived its members of their livelihood. (ii) It was also violative of the judgment and order dated 15.04.2015 passed in OWP No. 308/2015 read with order dated 16.04.2015 passed in Review Petition No. 9/2015, where the Court had observed that the respondents could not extend the offer of supply to milk federations and societies from outside the State of Jammu & Kashmir. (iii) The communication impugned had the effect of creating a monopoly in favour of one cooperative society in the whole State of Jammu & Kashmir, namely, J&K Milk Producers Cooperative Limited, Milk Plant, Chasmashahi, Srinagar, which firm was affiliated with NCDFI. (iv) The same was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India. (v) The impugned communication could not have been issued in light of communication dated 10.08.2015, which had envisaged that the provisions in the letter would be valid for a period of three years with effect from 01.10.2015 and would be reviewed thereafter. Stand of the Union of India 11. In its response, the Union of India took a stand that the decision as reflected in the impugned communication dated 12.07.2017 was a policy decision, which was not amenable to challenge in the writ jurisdiction of the Court. It was inter alia pleaded as follows:- (i) As a matter of national policy only the Cooperative members registered with NCDFI are authorized for supply of milk and milk products to the Indian Army across all States and not in the State of Jammu & Kashmir alone. (ii) It had always been a Government policy prior to 2005 to procure milk from NCDFI affiliated cooperative societies/state federations and that on account of special concerns for the State of J&K, it had been provided that Cooperative Societies based in J&K alone would be eligible for supply of milk and milk products in J&K, provided they are affiliated with NCDFI. (iii) This was done only with a view to ensure that only such Cooperative Societies would be permitted to supply fresh milk & milk products to the Indian Army, which functioned with the primary goal of empowering and benefiting the farmers, develop dairy industry at village and district level rather than operating for commercial considerations only. (iv) The J&K State continue to have its representation in NCDFI, inasmuch as, a Cooperative Society, namely, Jammu & Kashmir Milk Producers Cooperative Limited (JKMPCL) was also a member of NCDFI and, therefore eligible to enter into negotiated contracts. (v) The petitioners could also apply for being registered as member of NCDFI and acquire eligibility to participate in the process. Stand of NCDFI 12. In its response, the stand taken by the NCDFI was that it was a Cooperative Society registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, with its registered Head Office at Anand, Gujarat, and it was inter alia averred as under:- (i) It aims to contribute not only in promotion of dairy industry but also oilseeds, vegetable oil, edible oil and other commodities on cooperative lines. (ii) Its major activity was marketing milk and milk products to national institutions such as MoD, ITBP, Railways etc and was governed by the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and rules made thereunder. (iii) It had been associated with Ministry of Defence for more than three decades, which procured milk and milk products only from NCDFI or its member cooperatives on negotiated contracts. (iv) It acts as a single window for MoD for purposes of procurement of milk and milk products for the Armed Forces all over India. (v) Upon receipt of station-wise requirement from the Indian Army, it collects and compiles the consumer prices of milk fresh, butter fresh, cream fresh and paneer fresh from member dairy cooperatives and forwards the same to the Command Headquarters, thereafter station-wise contracts are concluded every year. (vi) It works for the welfare of the farmers at large and majority of the share of the profit earned by the societies goes to the farmers only. (vii) The applicant federation have dairy cooperatives as its members, who directly procure milk from farmers. Thus the process of procuring milk from the farmers by the dairy cooperatives gets an impetus and promotes dairy farming culture in the country. (vii) The applicant federation have dairy cooperatives as its members, who directly procure milk from farmers. Thus the process of procuring milk from the farmers by the dairy cooperatives gets an impetus and promotes dairy farming culture in the country. (viii) Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner in OWP No. 1076/2017 had challenged the policy dated 12.07.2017, it had also applied for registration as a member with NCDFI. Judgment and order impugned dated 26.03.2018 13. The Writ Court by virtue of judgment and order impugned 26.03.2018 dismissed the writ petitions holding inter alia that the impugned communication dated 12.07.2017 being in nature of a policy decision of the Government and not suffering from any perversity or irrationality, could not be interfered with. It is further held that the decision to require affiliation with NCDFI was regulatory in nature and did not amount to any unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on trade of dairy guaranteed to him under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. 14. It also held that neither the doctrine of legitimate expectation nor that of promissory estoppel was applicable to the instant case. It is further held that in issuing the impugned communication none of the directions issued in the earlier rounds of litigation in particular reference to OWP No. 308/2015 had been violated. Being aggrieved of the judgment and order aforementioned, the present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed. Submissions 15. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that what was required as per the impugned communication dated 12.07.2017 was affiliation with NCDFI, which eligibility is impossible to acquire, inasmuch as, while the communication impugned talks about affiliation, the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (in short “the Act”), under which NCDFI is registered in terms of Section 25, talks only about registration as members. It was thus urged that there being no provision in the Act of 2002, envisaging affiliation, the conditions prescribed in the impugned communication was bad and illegal. 16. It was urged that Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act do not apply to the State of J&K in view of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. It was thus urged that there being no provision in the Act of 2002, envisaging affiliation, the conditions prescribed in the impugned communication was bad and illegal. 16. It was urged that Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act do not apply to the State of J&K in view of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. It was urged next that the Writ Court was not correct in holding that the appellants could be taken as a nominal member, as incorporation as a nominal member or associate member in terms of Section 26 was only available to a person and not a Cooperative Society. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment. Consideration 17. As per Section 25 of the Act, besides others an individual competent to contract in terms of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, a Multi-State Cooperative Society or any other Cooperative Society can be incorporated as members upon submission of an application, which is envisaged to be disposed of in terms of Section 25(4), within a period of four months’ from the date of receipt thereof. Failure to do so upon expiry of the said period would be deemed to have resulted in a decision refusing admission to the applicant. While it is true that Section 25 does in so many words talk about affiliation, yet affiliation is a general term and has to be construed liberally. 18. According to Corpus Juris Secundum “the word affiliated is derived from Latin word “affiliatus” and means close association. It signifies a condition of being united, being in close connection, allied or attached as a member or Branch”. 19. Black’s Law Dictionary (5th edition) defines the word “affiliate” more or less on the same terms. 20. It thus would be clear that when the impugned communication dated 12.07.2018 required Cooperative Societies to be affiliated to “NCDFI”, by prescribing such a condition for affiliation, it must be presumed that the Cooperative Societies must be closely associated or attached, which in the present case would be possible only by becoming a member of NCDFI. 21. So far as submission that the appellants could not be admitted as nominal member is concerned, Section 26 has to be read with Section 25 of the Act. 21. So far as submission that the appellants could not be admitted as nominal member is concerned, Section 26 has to be read with Section 25 of the Act. While Section 26 pertains to the admission of a person as a nominal or associate member, Section 25 talks of admission as a member. Section 25(a) envisages the admission as a member of an individual, who is competent to contract in terms of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 25(b) envisages admission of a Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 or any Cooperative Society as a member. Besides, clauses (c), (d), (e), (f) & (g) entitles the Central Government, a State Government, a Corporation owned or controlled by the State or even a Government Company to be admitted as members. 22. Section 25 & 26, therefore, covers not only natural born persons, who are competent to enter into contract in law but even Juridical persons for grant of membership. 23. Section 25(b) specifically entitles the Cooperative Society to apply for admission as a member under the procedure prescribed in terms of the Clause 3 & 4. The fact that a Cooperative Society can be admitted as a member has not been denied even by NCDFI, who have in their response specifically stated that another Cooperative Society, namely, J&K Milk Producers Cooperative Limited (JKMPCL), Milk Plant, Chasmashahi, Srinagar was also a member of NCDFI eligible to enter into negotiated contracts. 24. “The latin maxim “Lex non cogit ad impossibilia” also expessed as “impotentia excusat legem” in common English parlance means that law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform.” However, in the present case, considering the provisions of the Act as also the reply of NCDFI, it cannot be said that the eligibility condition is impossible of acquisition, especially when a similar Cooperative Society, i.e., JKMPCL has also been admitted as a member. The plea of learned counsel for the appellants is, therefore, found to be without any basis and is accordingly rejected. Judicial Review in Policy Matters 25. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the Writ Court had erred in law in dismissing the writ petitions by holding that the impugned communication dated 12.07.2017 requiring affiliation with NCDFI was in the nature of a policy decision and hence not amenable to judicial review. Judicial Review in Policy Matters 25. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the Writ Court had erred in law in dismissing the writ petitions by holding that the impugned communication dated 12.07.2017 requiring affiliation with NCDFI was in the nature of a policy decision and hence not amenable to judicial review. It was urged that the Court could go into the issue if the change in policy suffered from arbitrariness. Reliance in this regard was placed in para 16 of Union of India vs. International Trading Co., AIR 2003 SC 3983 . What was sought to be highlighted was that the issue had to be seen not so much from the point of view of challenging the “framing of a policy” as it was regarding a challenge to the “change of a policy.” 26. The scope of Judicial review in policy matters is no longer res integra. It is settled law that the Court would not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the executive unless the same can be faulted on the grounds of malafides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, in which case the policy would render itself to be declared unconstitutional. In State of Punjab and Others vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Others, (1998)4 SCC 117 , it was held thus:- “…………..When Government forms its policy, it is based on number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. it would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The Court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article 21 When it restricts reimbursement on account of its financial constraints.” 27. On similar lines was the pronouncement of Apex Court in case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration and Others, (2001)3 SCC 635 , wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “The challenge, thus, in effect, is to the executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. On similar lines was the pronouncement of Apex Court in case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration and Others, (2001)3 SCC 635 , wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “The challenge, thus, in effect, is to the executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. It is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to judgment of the executive. The Courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State.” (Emphasis supplied) 28. In Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others, (2002)2 SCC 333 , the Apex Court in paragraph 92 & 98 held as under:- “92. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow it’s own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the Court 98. In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the Courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgement of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the Court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself.” 29. This view has recently been reiterated by the Apex Court in Parisons Agrotech Private Limited and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2015)9 SCC 657 , The Court observed as under:- “14. This view has recently been reiterated by the Apex Court in Parisons Agrotech Private Limited and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2015)9 SCC 657 , The Court observed as under:- “14. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives. Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and; it is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a decision of the Executive as the policy making is the domain of the Executive and the decision in question has passed the test of the judicial review.” 30. The aforementioned judgments have also been relied upon by the Writ Court to highlight the scope of Judicial Review in the policy matters. Undoubtedly, the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court are the law of land and are required to be followed. Testing the facts of the present case on the principles of law discussed above, it needs to be seen as to whether in issuing the communication impugned, the same was issued in public interest or the same could in any manner be said to be arbitrary or irrational. Needless to say that any decision, which is taken arbitrarily or is found to be irrational is antithetic to Article 14, as has been held in E. P. Royappa Vs State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 1974 S.C. 555 . 31. Since overwhelming reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on para 16 of Union of India Vs International Trading Co, 2003 SC 3983, it would be relevant to refer briefly to the same. In this judgment the Court reiterated the principle that if a policy or action of the Government fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. It proceeded to hold in para 16 thus:- “16. In this judgment the Court reiterated the principle that if a policy or action of the Government fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. It proceeded to hold in para 16 thus:- “16. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on by any ulterior criteria........................” 32. There is absolutely no dispute with the correctness of the ratio supra. It is correct to suggest that a “change in policy” would as much have to satisfy the test of Article 14. However, it needs to be emphasized that while dismissing the writ petitions, the Writ Court certainly did not hold that the policy framed was not at all subject to judicial review or was not amenable to the test of rationality or reasonableness or non-arbitrariness. On the other hand it proceeded to hold, on the basis of the facts and material on record that the policy reflected in the impugned communication dated 12.07.2017 did not suffer from any perversity. Whether the policy is arbitrary and irrational 33. The stand taken by the NCDFI as also urged by the Union of India was that the policy cannot be said to be arbitrary and irrational. It was urged that the said condition was incorporated with a view to ensure proper regulation, so that only legitimately operating societies could participate in the negotiated contracts. 34. It is worthwhile to highlight that during the pendency of the proceedings one of the appellant, i.e., the Milk Producers Cooperative Marketing Processing Ltd. applied for membership with the NCDFI, however, the said request for membership was rejected vide communication dated 27.04.2018 addressed by the Managing Director of NCDFI. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the reasons given for rejection of the request for membership, which is as under:- “2.7.3 Membership ......................... Membership of MPCMPL is open for individuals residing within the area of operation and for cooperatives registered under J&K Self Reliant Act, 1999 and registered under J&K Contract Act, 28, body corporate registered under law of force. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the reasons given for rejection of the request for membership, which is as under:- “2.7.3 Membership ......................... Membership of MPCMPL is open for individuals residing within the area of operation and for cooperatives registered under J&K Self Reliant Act, 1999 and registered under J&K Contract Act, 28, body corporate registered under law of force. Observations:- There are no conditions in the Articles of Association of MPCMPL that the member should be a diary producer, which is a primary condition for all NCDFI members. For example, Articles of Association of JKMPCL mentions – “Any registered primary milk producers cooperative societies in the area of operation of the Cooperative which is supplying milk in the cooperative since last 100 days and the whole lot of the milk procured (except local sale) at least 100 litres per day in the cooperative and the bye-laws of the societies are in conformity with model Articles of Association of the societies prepared by the cooperative and is ready to accept te responsibility of members and the services of the Cooperative.” Further, from the Annual Report (2016-17) submitted by the MPCMPL, the following questions arise. Membership of MPCMPL includes – 12 Cooperative Societies, 1200 Basic Members and 13,000 Nominal Members. As per para 5 of Articles of Association of MPCMPL value of per share is Rs. 1,000/- while individual members need to subscribe for one share, member societies/cooperatives or body corporates need to subscribe for hundred shares. However, in the Balance Sheet the Investment Capital is shown as Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and Accumulated retained earnings of Rs. 2,14,884/- are shown. It seems that all member societies or most of the members have not contributed to the share capital. Though cooperatives enroll many members, only basic members will have right to share the profits and to take part in the management i.e. their membership is nominal. MPCMPL has not shared the list of their members though specifically requested by the NCDFI. From the data provided as of now, it can be construed that only one share is issued and the dividends are being paid to this shareholder. In case of JKMPCL; subscribed shares are 5,824 of Rs. 1,000/- each. A cooperative is an association of persons to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs. In case of dairy cooperative, it is dairy producers. In case of JKMPCL; subscribed shares are 5,824 of Rs. 1,000/- each. A cooperative is an association of persons to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs. In case of dairy cooperative, it is dairy producers. However, in case of MPCMPL, if it is one share holder then it violates the provisions of the Act as it is against the spirit of cooperation itself. Principles of cooperatives specifically call for democratic members control and economic contribution of members but both principles are seemed to be not adhered to in the principles of the said cooperative. 2.7.4 Business Operations From the Balance Sheet, it is also observed that all the creditors are individuals and advances to suppliers include only two organizations namely Daily Needs Milk Proc. & Milk Prod. and VMPPL. It seems milk is bought from these two entities alone, which may mean membership of other basic members or cooperative societies is inactive. As per the objectives of the firm, milk need to be bought from its farmer members or through member societies. Further, in Debtors, oustanding dues from Army are listed and there are no other outstanding dues. From this, it can be construed that milk is being purchased from the above mentioned two organizations alone by giving advances and being supplied exclusively to Army i.e. purely on the grounds of trading and not with the purpose of benefiting farmer members through cooperation. Important ethos which cooperatives words on are to maximize the returns of the primary farmer members. Removing the intermediaries (traders) and enabling farmers to access the market directly is the key in cooperation. But as in this case the traders are specifically being brought in, it is clear that they are getting benefitted at the cost of farmers. 2.7.5 Fixed Assets Nevertheless to say, for any dairy cooperative, infrastructure is must and most of the investments are for land, dairy equipment, vehicles, etc. In the Balance Sheet of MPCMPL, under the head “Fixed Assets”, sub-headings “Property and equipment and “Leasehold Premises” are mentioned and against that Nil amount is shown. Gross values of Fixed Assets was Zero for a firm which has a turnover of Rs. 21 crores during the financial year 2016-17. Not possessing the required fixed assets like furniture and office equipment, raises serious doubts on physical existence of the firm. Gross values of Fixed Assets was Zero for a firm which has a turnover of Rs. 21 crores during the financial year 2016-17. Not possessing the required fixed assets like furniture and office equipment, raises serious doubts on physical existence of the firm. 2.8 From the above, it is observed that though the Registration and Objectives of both JKMPCL and MPCMPL are same, there is a vast difference in their functioning from the point of view that benefits which should be accrued to member farmers is actually not being done. While JKMPCL is operating for milk producers of J&K State, it may not be the case with MPCMPL as it seems from the information provided and from the perusal of the records. 2.9 All the members of the NCDFI are formed under the aegis of Operation Flood. To extend the base, the NCDFI Board can consider to include the cooperatives financed under the National Dairy Plan (NDP) of National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) or for cooperatives formed with the financial assistance of State/ Central Government. This is basically to ensure that all the members of NCDFI are functioning on the principles of cooperatives. Further, all members of NCDFI are following Anand Pattern Cooperative System i.e. multi-tier cooperative structure. 2.10 Exercising the authority given by the NCDFI Board, considering the above facts emanating from the records so submitted, request of The Milk Producers Cooperative Marketing and Processors Ltd. (MPCMPL) for Associate Membership of the NCDFI is rejected herewith. The application of the applicant can be considered again only on substantial compliance of the infirmities as noticed herein above.” 35. On a perusal of the rejection letter issued by NCDFI, it is clear that serious flaws have been highlighted with regard to the functioning of the appellant-cooperative society, which appears to have been working more as a trader instead of working in the true spirit of the cooperative movement for the benefit of the farmers and the milk producers. But for the requirement of affiliation with the NCDFI, the appellant-cooperative society would have as a matter of right claimed participation in the negotiated contracts, even when, strictly speaking, such a cooperative society, working in the capacity of a trader would not be entitled to have any monopolistic benefit, which was meant otherwise to benefit the farmers and milk producers in general. 36. 36. The requirement of affiliation with NCDFI, therefore, acts as a check on the unscrupulous traders, who masquerade as cooperative societies to achieve personal benefits rather than to work for the goal, which the cooperative movement seeks to achieve. The condition of affiliation, therefore, cannot be said to be either arbitrary or irrational but prescribed in public interest. The condition being regulatory also cannot be said to impede the conduct of business of the appellants, who can still participate, if they otherwise satisfy the eligibility conditions of affiliation after satisfying the requisite conditions and proving its bonafides as a cooperative society. 37. It was next contended that the impugned policy requiring affiliation with NCDFI was contrary to communication dated 25.06.2018, which had purportedly reiterated the exclusive right of the cooperatives based in J&K to enter into negotiated contracts with the Indian army. For purposes of reliance, the said communication is reproduced herein below:- “The Government policy of 12th July, 2017 has remained sensitive to the development of dairy farming in J&K and maintained the exclusive rights of J&K based cooperatives having own processing infrastructure to enter into negotiated contracts with the Indian Army. Other Societies may get affiliated to NCDFI to enable them to supply milk to Indian Army.” 38. On a perusal of the aforementioned communication, it can be seen that it does not in any manner override the spirit of communication dated 12.07.2017, requiring affiliation with NCDFI. Infact, there is no contradiction between the communication dated 25.06.2018 and the impugned communication dated 12.07.2017, insofar as both recognize the rights of the J&K based Cooperated to enter into negotiated contracts. On the other hand, communication dated 25.06.2018 infact places a greater onus on the J&K based Cooperative Societies to possess their own processing infrastructure for purposes of entering into negotiated contracts. In any case, the communication dated 25.06.2018 does not have the effect of absolving the J&K based Cooperative Societies from seeking affiliation with NCDFI. Equally untenable is the argument that the policy had violated the judgment and order dated 15.04.2015. What was stated by the learned single Judge in the said judgment and order in paragraph 11 is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “11. Equally untenable is the argument that the policy had violated the judgment and order dated 15.04.2015. What was stated by the learned single Judge in the said judgment and order in paragraph 11 is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “11. This petition is, accordingly allowed and impugned communication dated 31.01.2015, to the extent it informs the member State Co-operative Federations to participate in the tender enquiry which was scheduled on 12.02.2015 and, thereby, extends the offer to outside J&K State Milk Federations/ Societies is quashed. As a necessary corollary thereto, the respondents shall now consider the tenders/offers of such Societies/ Federations only as belong to the State of Jammu and Kashmir including petitioner who shall also be allowed to participate in the tender process by extending date, if not already submitted offers/tenders, of course, in terms of the Policy in question. The Interim Application together with the direction passed therein shall abide the above order. Parties shall bear their respective costs.” 39. On a reading of the aforementioned judgment and order, it thus becomes clear that what was quashed was the action of the respondents in allowing participation of Milk Federations & Societies from outside the State to participate in the negotiated contracts and consequently a monopoly created in favour of the State based Cooperative Societies was maintained. The State based Cooperative Socities can still participate in the negotiated contracts, provided they fulfil certain conditions, as in the present case the condition of affiliation with NCDFI. 40. Equally untenable in law is the contention that the appellants have a legitimate expectation to continue to enter into negotiated contracts with the Army on the basis of communication dated 10.08.2015, which had not envisaged any affiliation with NCDFI and had further provided that the provisions of the letter would be followed for a period of three years, w.e.f. 01.10.2015 and would be reviewed only thereafter. Since in the preceding paragraphs, we have already held that the requirement of seeking affiliation with NCDFI does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or irrationality and since we have already held that the requirement regarding affiliation was only in public interest, the grounds based upon the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel are no longer available. Since in the preceding paragraphs, we have already held that the requirement of seeking affiliation with NCDFI does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or irrationality and since we have already held that the requirement regarding affiliation was only in public interest, the grounds based upon the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel are no longer available. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to quote paragraph 13 of Union of India and Another vs. International Trading Company & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 3983 , which held thus:- “13. Doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot came in the way of public interest. Indisputably, public interest has to prevail over private interest. The case at hand shows that a conscious policy decision has been taken and there is no statutory compulsion to act contrary. In that context, it cannot be said that respondents have acquired any right for renewal. The High Court was not justified in observing that the policy decision was contrary to statute and for that reason direction for consideration of the application for renewal was necessary. Had the High Court not recorded any finding on the merits of respective stands, direction for consideration in accordance with law would have been proper and there would not have been any difficulty in accepting the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents. But having practically foreclosed any consideration by the findings recorded, consideration of the application would have been mere formality and grant of renewal would have been the inevitable result, though it may be against the policy decision. That renders the High Court judgment indefensible.” 41. So far as submission that provisions of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act do not apply to the State of J&K is concerned, the same is required to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, Section 1(4) of the Act itelf states that it applies to whole of India. The appellants have not challenged the vires of the aforesaid provision, therefore, no relief can be granted to the appellants. Secondly, neither in the writ petition nor in the memo of appeal, such a ground either has been pleaded or argued. Therefore, no plea can be permitted to be raised. 42. For the reasons mentioned above, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. Secondly, neither in the writ petition nor in the memo of appeal, such a ground either has been pleaded or argued. Therefore, no plea can be permitted to be raised. 42. For the reasons mentioned above, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, both the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed along with connected IAs.