RAJENDRA R PATEL Vs. UIO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Mr. Rajendra R. Patel, partner of the 'gujarat Fertilizers' a registered partnership firm is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 13969 of 2006. In all these petitions, the grievance is common and, therefore, this common order is passed.

(2.) WHAT is challenged in these petitions is the notification/letter issued by the Union of india (Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Corporation) bearing no. 5-4/96 Fert. Law dated 22. 07. 2002, produced at Annexure-A (in Special Civil Application 13969 of 2006 ). Para 2 of the order sets out the object for which the order is issued. For ready perusal, the same is reproduced as under:-

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these petitions vehemently submitted that the action of Respondent No. 1 is arbitrary. The reason for which the order is branded 'arbitrary' is that Respondent No. 1 had, later on, permitted the Co-operative societies' to continue to have 'mixtures of fertilizers' by physical operation', whereas the petitioners are not. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that respondent No. 1 treats the Co-operative societies differently then the petitioners. The submission of the learned Counsel is not only devoid of any merit but is also misconceived. A question of 'arbitrariness', arises only when persons belonging to the same class are treated differently and not when persons belonging to two classes are treated differently. No detailed reasoning is required to substantiate this point. The 'co-operative Societies' by themselves form a different class than that of the petitioners, who are admittedly not the 'co-operative units'.