Satya Brata Sinha, J. - (1.) This application is directed against an office order No. 581 dated 10.11.97 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, which reads thus : "In pursuance of Directorate's Memorandum No. 32/DSW/SNR/ 92-93/VOL/III/1254 dated 7th November, 1997 with regard to Stop Private purchase of Raw Ration articles, the Supply Order served by this Office vide No. 770 dated 31/3/97 will be deemed cancelled with effect from 15/11/97. As such, all suppliers are hereby asked to stop supply of Raw ration articles from 15/11/97 onwards to the Centres concerned." The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
(2.) The petitioners are carrying on business of supply of various articles to different departments of the respondent administration. On or about 26 2.97, sealed quotations were invited for supply of the materials mentioned therein by the Child Development Project Officer on the conditions mentioned therein. Pursuant to the said notice inviting tender, the petitioners submitted their tenders and the same had been accepted, a sample copy whereof is contained in annexure 'B' to the writ application. The petitioners contend that they are income tax payees and holding licences for carrying on business in the said articles, and as such, the contract entered into by and between the petitioners and the respondents could not be rescinded by reason the impugned order.
(3.) Mr. Das, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, although has raised a constitutional question, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the same may not. be necessary for this Court to consider. Admittedly, a contract had entered into. Such a concluded contract was binding on the parties. The respondents have failed to show, as no affidavit in opposition has been filed, nor any document has been produced, as to whether the purported memorandum dated 7.11.94 attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case at ail. In any event, as quotation inviting tender was issued on 26.2.97, the purported memorandum would have only a prospective effect and thus a concluded contract could not have rescinded.;