Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

1. WA.Nos.1049 and 1624 of 2012 are preferred by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture and Government of Andhra Pradesh, who are arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in WP.Nos.27927 and 9896 of 2011 respectively. Writ petitioner 1 and 2, in both the writ petitioner, have now figured as respondents in these appeals.

2. Relief prayed for in WP.No.9896 of 2011 is questioning the policy decision of the State of AP, under memo dated 09.11.2010 and consequential rejection of petitioner’s application by order dated 26.03.2011. Further, the relief prayed for in later WP.No.27927 of 2011 filed by the same petitioner is questioning the subsequent order dated 23.09.2011 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of certificate for manufacture of NPK Mixture Fertilizer.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared in support of these appeals, has advanced various contentions also supported by synopsis of submission and relied upon various decision in support of his contentions. Similarly, Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, who opposed both the appeals and appeared in support of the writ petitions, has also raised elaborate contentions supplemented by a synopsis.

4. In addition to these appeals, we had also heard WP.Nos.24537 and 30856 of 2012 and WP.No.6284 of 2011 where similar question, as is involved in the appeals, arise for consideration. Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, has also been heard in support of the writ petitions along with the learned Additional Advocate General, who resisted the writ petitions. The brief details of these connected writ petitions are as follows:

(a) WP.No.24537 of 2010 is filed by AP Fertilizer Mixtures Manufacturers Association questioning the fax message of the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture to all the District Joint Director of Agriculture in the State instructing them to monitor movement and availability of fertilizers to meet the demand of the farmers and to see that NPK granulate mixture units shall procure the raw material only with the permission of Commissioner of Agriculture.

(b) WP.No.6284 of 2011 is filed seeking a declaration that the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (for short ‘FCO’) cannot be applied the petitioner and for consequential direction to official respondents forbearing the petitioner from applying the provisions of the FCO.

(c) WP.No.30856 of 2012 is filed by a fertilizer manufacturing unit, which is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Agriculture rejecting the request for grant of manufacturing certificate as per of the policy that no mixture unit will be allowed license in view of shortage of raw material. Petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before the appellate authority i.e. Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Cooperation Department. The said appeal was dismissed under G.O.Rt.No.945 dated 23.08.2012 upholding the order of the Commissioner in view of shortage of raw material as well as on other ground. Though the other grounds are not germane for consideration, as pointed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the primary ground of rejection based on the policy, is the question involved in this batch of cases. Since the common questions arise for consideration, the writ petitions are also being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP.No.27927 of 2011 are noted and the parties are referred to as they are referred in the writ petitions. Facts, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The writ petitioner established mixture fertilizer plant and had applied for issuance of certificate for manufacturing NPK Mixture Fertilizer under Clause 15 of the FCO, which would involve allotment of urea to the mixture fertilizer plant for the purpose of manufacture of mixture fertilizer. As the allotment of urea by the Government of India (GOI) to the State of Andhra Pradesh was not adequate to meet the needs of farmers, who