the benefits of the schemes provided to the farmers in Goa. To that effect, the learned Government Advocate, Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1, upon instructions from the concerned Department has stated that the respondent no. 5 shall not avail of any of the schemes which have been initiated by the respondent no. 1 for the benefit of the farmers and even the benefits of the schemes referred to by the petitioner in their petition which are available to the farmers shall not be availed by the respondent no.5. Considering the said submission of the learned Government Advocate upon instructions, we find that the apprehension of the petitioner on that count would no longer survive. It cannot be disputed that the Government has a right to change its policy and, as such, the Government cannot be tied down to any specific policy. There is no material on record produced by the petitioner to establish the impact such policy would have to the rights of the petitioner, if any. Merely because the monopoly of the petitioner may be adversely affected in procuring the milk from the farmers would not by itself justify this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there is cogent material produced by the petitioner to substantiate their contention that such policy is ultra vires any law guaranting the rights of the petitioner.
