Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) ALL the petitions involving similar issues and prayers were heard together and are being decided simultaneously by this common order.
(2.) ALL the petitioners are publishing houses engaged in the business of publishing various books in Hindi or other languages and books for advancement of school education. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the writ petition No. 1908 of 2015 are considered. The writ petition being No. 1908 of 2015 has been filed by 43 petitioners praying for the following reliefs: - "(i) The orders dated 03.03.2014, 04.03.2014 and 02.01.2015 of the respondent authorities may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to take the supply as per order dated 18.12.2013 and release the amount of the respective petitioners as per the order. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay compensation as your Lordships deem fit, for harassing the petitioners both mentally and physically by the respondent. (iv) Any other order or direction this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioners. As per the case of the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 had published an advertisement on 9/9/2013 (Annexure -1) inviting desiring publishers to furnish sample copies of the books for being purchased for the Libraries of various secondary and higher secondary schools, on the terms and conditions as mentioned on the website of the secondary education department. Thereafter one supplementary advertisement dated 17/9/2013 (Annexure -2) was issued clarifying that the books to be purchased vide advertisement dated 9/9/2013 would be purchased under the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) for the year 2013 -14. Accordingly, the petitioners had submitted the samples of their respective books to the respondent authorities for the purpose of selection at the State Level. According to the petitioners, on the basis of the opinion of the Expert Committee, the respondents had selected 373 books of around 350 publishers, and accordingly issued the orders on 18/12/2013 to the concerned publishers for supplying the books as mentioned in their respective orders at the various District Head Quarters as specified therein. The copies of the orders have been produced and collectively marked as Annexure -4. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioners thereafter had spent huge amount for printing of the books for being supplied as per the said orders, however all of a sudden on the formation of the new Government, the respondent No. 3 passed an order on 27/12/2013 (Annexure -5) to the effect that the orders dated 18/12/2013 were stayed. A paper publication was also made by the respondents reporting that a Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter of purchase of books worth Rs. 11 crores. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 issued the order dated 3/3/2014 (Annexure -7), informing the petitioners and others that the order dated 27/12/2013 was withdrawn, and that the petitioners were required to supply the books at the respective Districts to the District Project Officers in open book fairs to be organized at the District Head Quarters. Another letter dated 4/3/2014 (Annexure -8) was also issued by the respondent No. 3 to all the District Programme Coordinators directing them to have book fairs to be organized on the dates and as per the directions given therein. It was directed inter alia that the selected 373 books shall be displayed in the said book fairs to enable the school committees to purchase the same as per their requirement and usefulness, and that the publisher shall have to deposit Rs. 5,000/ - per stall for the purpose of registration. The said action of the respondents came to be challenged by few publishing houses by preferring S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3034 of 2014, wherein the Court while issuing the notices to the respondents, stayed the orders dated 3/3/2014 and 4/3/2014 till further orders. According to the petitioners, though the funds reserved for the said books were put in abeyance by the respondent No. 3 as per the letter dated 9/12/2014 (Annexure -9), the respondent No. 3 on 2/1/2015 issued an order (Annexure -10) to all the District Education Officers directing them to utilize the funds of 2013 -14, for the purchase of books in 2014 -15 for the yearly scheme. The petitioners therefore have challenged the orders dated 3/3/2014, 4/3/2014 and 2/1/2015 issued by the respondent No. 3 on the ground of being arbitrary, mala fide and against the doctrine of promissory estoppels.
(3.) THE respondents challenging the very maintainability of the petition have contended in the reply inter alia that the orders dated 18/12/2013 were stayed vide the order dated 27/12/2013 as it was realised by the concerned authorities that the previous government at the fag end of the completion of their tenure had taken the decision to purchase the books in a very haste manner, and without following the instructions contained in the Manual on the Financial Management and Procurement for RMSA (hereinafter referred to as 'the Manual for RMSA). According to the respondents, after issuance of the letter dated 27/12/2013, there was no reasons for the petitioners to make any expenditure on the printing or publication of the books, as the orders issued on 18/12/2013, were stayed on 27/12/2013. It has also been contended that the order dated 3/3/2014 was issued to all the publishers who were selected and whose purchase orders were cancelled, and that the order dated 4/3/2014 was issued giving direction as to how and on which dates the book fairs would be organized in the respective Districts. The order dated 2/1/2015 was issued for utilizing the unutilized budget of the year 2013 -2014 for purchasing the books in the year 2014 -15, which order could not be said to be arbitrary or illegal. It is further contended that the impugned decisions were taken for making the entire process more transparent and to enable the concerned authorities at the District Level to see the contents of the books and purchase the same as per their requirement and usefulness. Such decisions being policy decisions could not be challenged by the petitioners by way of present petitions. According to the respondents, the petitioners having alleged breach of contract and prayed for indemnifying the losses incurred by them, such reliefs could not be granted in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;