The main legal point established in the judgment is that government actions, particularly in the distribution of raw materials and procurement schemes, must be in conformity with relevant principles applicable to all similarly situated parties to avoid discrimination, arbitrariness, and violation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

FATHIMA BEEVI, J. :- These appeals arise from the common judgment dated 26-7-1983 disposing of O. P. Nos. 4957 of 1983-R and 5368 of 1983-I. The Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation, the 3rd respondent in the Original Petitions, is the appellant in W. A. Nos.569 and 570 of 1983 while the 1st respondent State has preferred W. A. Nos.606 and 607 of 1983.

2. The Original Petitions had been filed challenging Ext.R-3 (a) order of the Government dated 25-4-1983, directing sale of raw cashewnuts procured under the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution) Act, 1981, shortly stated the 'Act'. The petitioners are cashew manufacturers and factory owners.

3. The Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation, authorised agent of the Government, had reported to the Government that about 4800 M. T. of raw cashewruts procured under the Monopoly Procurement Scheme during 1982 cashew season were remaining unlifted in the various godowns of the State. The Cashew Special Officer, Quilon had allotted this quantity to the eligible processors, but they failed to lift the same. Consequently the Government passed orders that the said stock procured in the 1982 season may be sold to the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'. This order dated 25-4-1983 is under challenge in the Original Petitions.

4. The Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution) Act, 1981 (shortly stated 'the Act') provided under Section 3 that no person shall sell any raw cashewnut within the State except to the agent of the Government authorised by them in this behalf by notification. Under Section 10 the agent or a sub-agent had to sell in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 which stated that the raw cashewnuts procured shall be allotted on a pro rata basis to the various processors. During 1982 season the Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., the agent notified under Sec.3, procured about 62000 M. T. and the Special Officer made allotment, the Government having fixed the price under Section 13 at Rs. 7.55 per Kg. 4800 M. T. thus allotted remained without being lifted. After the Government Order dated 25-4-1983 it appears that Exts.P-1 and P-2 representations were made by the petitioners offering to purchase the entire stock at a price of Rs. 4.50 per Kg. or at a competitive price. Their representations were rejected. The petitioners had therefore filed the writ petitions for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.R-3 (a) directing the 2nd respondent to make over the 4800 M. T. of raw cashewnuts held in stock by it to the Corporation and also directing the respondents to consider on merit the offer made by the petitioners.

5. The main contention advanced by the Corporation in resisting the writ petitions was that on the failure of the petitioners to take delivery of the raw cashewnuts offered to be sold to their factory, the offer for sale stood cancelled, and thereafter the Government had the power to make suitable arrangements for the disposal of the raw cashewnuts procured by the agent; and Ext.R-3 (a) order has been made in exercise of that power. It was also the case that Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act stood repealed by the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution) Amendment Act, 1983, which came into force on 7-4-1983 replacing the Ordinance issued in that behalf; the petitioners had therefore no right to claim that the price should be fixed by the Government in accordance with the norms and guidelines prescribed under Section 13 or to have the quantity again put up for allotment to the processors. It was also stated that the Corporation being a public sector undertaking owning a large number, of factories, the order of the State Government making over the raw cashewnuts to the Corporation is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

6. The learned single Judge held the view that the amendment of the Act had no retrospective operation and the procu