( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the pricing policy parameters for the viith and VIIIth pricing periods issued by the respondent and communicated to the petitioners by letter dated 4-6-2002 vide annexure 1 to the petition as well as the impugned fixation of the retention price by communication dated 19-8-2002 vide annexure 2 to the petition particularly in respect of the parameters/norms mentioned in para 32 of the petition as null and void. The petitioners have prayed for a direction that the pricing policy parameters for the vllth and Vlllth pricing periods cannot be given retrospective operation, and have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to continue to determine and notify the retention prices of the petitioners in accordance with the pricing policy parameters for the VIth pricing period as communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 24-7-1997/5-8-1997 Annexure 4 to the petition and to continue to make monthly payments to the petitioners on that basis. They have also prayed for a direction restraining the respondents from recovery of any amount from the petitioner and doing any act in furtherance of the pricing policy parameters for the Vllth and Vlllth periods issued by the respondent and have prayed for refund of an amount illegally realized from the petitioners with interest.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel Dr. Rajeev dhawan, senior Advocate and Sri S. M. A. Kazmi for the petitioners, and Sri S. P. Gupta for the respondents.

( 3 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Kolkata. The petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the petitioner No. 1 and most of the shareholders are citizens of India. The petitioner company is engaged in the business inter alia of manufacturing urea at its factory located at panki, Kanpur, U. P. and distribution and sale thereof. Urea is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act. The respondent Union of India introduced and has administered since 1977 a rentention Pricing Scheme (RPS) for pricing of fertilizers. This system was developed with a view to introducing a rational system of pricing of fertilizers. Under the scheme a maximum retail price (MRP) of fertilizers that could be charged to farmers was fixed at low, controlled levels unrelated to the cost of production and distribution of the same. At the same time a reasonable return on the investment by manufacturers was also granted under the scheme to give incentive to businessness. Under the scheme, the Central Government decided to fix a price called the retention price for each manufacturer to cover his cost of production and to yield to him a post tax return of 12% on his net worth. The retention price scheme stated :

"the system provides for a fair ex factory retention price per tonne of urea (hereinafter referred as retention price) for each plant based on a capacity utlization of 80 per cent and a combination of norms and actuals in regard to the consumption of raw materials, utilites and other inputs, maintenance and other costs and provides for a post tax return of 12 per cent on net worth. "

( 4 ) TRUE copy of the gazette notification dated 1-11-1997 introducing the system of retention price is Annexure 5. It is alleged in para 16 that the Gazette notification dated 1-11-1997 contained a clear and unequivocal representation and assurance by the Central Government to all fertilizer manufacturers to the effect that the price controls in respect of fertilizers would not adversely affect the profitability and return to the fertilizer manufacturer which would remain at a reasonable post tax level of 12% on net worth at a normative capacity utlization of 80%. It is alleged that on the basis of this representation and assurance all manufacturers of fertilizers, including the petitioners, continued their operations otherwise they would have been constrained to close down their business