Judgment

R.M. SAHAI, J.

(1) WAS there any valid justification for the appellants, the Union of India, to withhold the payment of subsidy to the respondents, the small-scale manufacturers of fertiliser, is the main question that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High court? Two other questions that arise in this connection are if the High court committed any error in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere at the stage of show cause if a report prepared by the Project Development India Limited (in brief PDIL) behind the back of the respondents could be relied for rejecting the specification of standard fertiliser produced by the respondents.

(2) BEFORE adverting to these issues we consider it necessary to mention that the payment of subsidy to manufacturers of fertilisers was introduced in 1982 under a scheme framed by the government of India in pursuance of which every manufacturer was required to give a written undertaking to the President of India. In 1985 government of India issued a Fertiliser (Control) Order under the Essential Commodities Act. Sub- clause (h) of Clause (2 of