IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.Nos.24770 to 24777 and 26536 to 26538 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 to 4 of 2008 and 5 of 2008 in W.P.Nos.24770 to 24777 of 2008 M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2008 in W.P.Nos.26536 to 26538 of 2008 RAJESWARI PUTHAGA NILAYAM, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR ..PETITIONER IN WP.24770/08 N.BALAKRISHNAN TAMIL CHOLAI PATHIPPAGAM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR ..PETITIONER IN WP.24771/08 R. SELVAMANIAN PRABHAT BOOK HOUSE REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR ..PETITIONER IN WP.24772/08 S. PRABAKARAN PONNI NOOLAGAM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX ..PETITIONER IN WP.24773/08 B. RAJESWARI PALLAVI PATHIPPAGAM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX ..PETITIONER IN WP.24774/08 P. MALLIGA YOGARAM PATHIPPAGAM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX ..PETITIONER IN WP.24775/08 T. NIRMALA VASANTHA PRASURAM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX ..PETITIONER IN WP.24776/08 S.M. VASANTHA SURYARAMAN PATHIPPAGAM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR ..PETITIONER IN WP.24777/08 M. SIVAKUMAR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ K.RAJENDRAN PROPRIETOR, ..PETITIONER IN WP.26536/08 AGILAVALLI PATHIPAGAM V.SARAVANAN PROPRIETOR, RAJA RAJESWARI ..PETITIONER IN WP.26537/08 PUTHAGALAYAM A.PREMA PROPRIETRIX, ..PETITIONER IN WP.26538/08 BAIRAVI PATHIPAGAM vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ..1ST RESPONDENT IN AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, WP.24770 TO 24777/08 FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ..1ST RESPONDENT IN AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, WP.26536 TO 26538/08 FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. THE COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, PANAGAL BUILDING, ..2ND RESPONDENT IN SAIDAPET, CHENNI-15. ALL WPS. Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Government Orders of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.208 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS-I) Department dated 31.12.2007 and the consequential G.O.Ms.No.88, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS-I) Department dated 05.06.2008 and to quash the same in so far it relates to the constitution of committee at the sole discretion of the second respondent for the purpose of selecting books to be supplied for Village Panchayat Libraries pursuant to the notification published by the second respondent in Daily Thanthi dated 20.08.2007 is concerned and to direct the respondents to consider and select the publication submitted by the petitioner based upon the method for the libraries for Village Panchayats pursuant to the procedure notified by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.97, Rural Development and Panchayat (SGS-2) dated 13.06.2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gandhi, S.C., for Mr.R.G.Narendhiran (W.P.Nos.24770 to 24777 of 2008) Mr.J.Ravikumar, for Mr.Y.N.Venkatraj, (W.P.Nos.26536 to 26538 of 2008) For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Addl.A.G., assisted by Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the first respondent made in G.O.Ms.No.208 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS-I) Department dated 31.12.2007 and the consequential G.O.Ms.No.88, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS-I) Department dated 05.06.2008 so far it relates to the constitution of committee at the sole discretion of the second respondent for the purpose of selecting books to be supplied for Village Panchayat Libraries pursuant to the notification published by the second respondent in "Daily Thanthi" dated 20.08.2007 is concerned and to direct the respondents to consider and select the publication submitted by the petitioners based upon the method for the libraries for Village Panchayats pursuant to the procedure notified by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.97, Rural Development and Panchayat (SGS-2) dated 13.06.2007. 2. The short matrix of the matter as put forth by the petitioners in these writ petitions are set out here under:- 2.1. The petitioners are publishers in various classes. The Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.Ms.No.115, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 11.09.2006 introduced a scheme under the name and style of Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam, (herein after referred as the Scheme). Under the Scheme, the Government allotted funds for the development of the villagers and in addition to the existing allocation of more than Rs.320 Crores, a further sum of Rs.90 Crores was allotted. The Scheme contemplates opening and maintenance of reading room in every village panchayat. The said library / reading room could also accommodate indoor games such as chess, carom board, etc. and necessary furniture could be purchased for implementation of the Scheme. 2.2. To ensure more effective implementation of the Scheme, the second respondent herein submitted certain proposals to the Government which were accepted and G.O.Ms.No.97, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 13.06.2007 came to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be issued. Clause 10 of the said Government Order envisages constitution of Development Level Committee of 16 members, under the Chairmanship of District Collector. The District Librarian of each District, the Chief Educational Officer, Deputy Director of Medical Services, District Sports Officer were members of the committee. Under clause 12, tenders were called for, for implementing various schemes and appointed the Block Development Officer as the tender inviting authority, upto Rs.5,00,000/- and in respect of tenders over and above Rs.5,00,000/-, the District Collector is empowered. As per Clause 12 of the said Government Order, in respect of tenders for books, wooden furniture and sports materials, the District Collector of the concerned District was appointed as the tender inviting authority upto the limit of Rs.5,00,000/- and over and above Rs.5,00,000/-, the Director of Rural Development, the second respondent herein. 2.3. While that being so, the second respondent by a notification published in the "Daily Thanthi" dated 29.08.2007 called for expression of interest for supply of Tamil and English books for Village panchayat Libraries under the said Scheme. In the meanwhile, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 07.10.2008 calling upon a chosen few to sign the agreement for supply of the books and it has been stated that the agreement should be signed on or before 14.10.2008. Aggrieved by the arbitrary and unreasonable action of the second respondent, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. 3. The grounds of attack are that -- (i) Ignoring the procedure established by G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 13.06.2007, the respondents are adopting a different selection process, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction. (ii) At the time when the second respondent issued a paper publication dated 20.08.2007 inviting expression of interest for supply of Tamil and English books for the said Scheme, they were made to believe that the list of books would be scrutinized by the committee constituted at the District Level in terms of G.O.Ms.No.97. However, the first respondent issued an amendment to the said Government Order bypassing another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.208 by introducing a new sub para 12 (a) and the consequential G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 05.06.2008, which has vested the power with the second respondent. This Government Order changing/ altering the terms and conditions after issuance of the notification in G.O.Ms.No.97 is without jurisdiction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) Such amendment amending the conditions for selection or the methodology cannot be done without notice to the petitioners, who have already submitted their applications pursuant to the notification dated 20.08.2007. (iv) The power conferred on the second respondent to constitute a committee to select the books in an unfettered discretion vested with one authority giving room for various allegations of favourtism and nepotism. (v) The impugned Government Order is also against the public interest vis-a-vis the object of the original Scheme. If the selection of books are to be made at the sole discretion of the second respondent either acting by himself or under the recommendation of the committee constituted by him, the same would not serve the purpose since the Scheme was devised to ensure supply of books which are suited or required for each library and panchayat District Level. It may result in dumping of books which are already available with them. (vi) The State Level Committee constituted at the sole discretion of the second respondent would not have absolute knowledge of the local requirements and the availability of the books under the existing Scheme. Thus, it would defeat the object which is sought to be achieved by the Scheme. (vii) The impugned Government Orders are meant to help the major publishers / dealers and the small time publishers like the petitioners who have published very useful books would be totally eliminated. Thus, the procedure adopted for selection of the books would lack transparency. (viii) The books were collected from the publishers in May, 2008 and by June, 2008, the entire thing has been finalised. Thus, without reading the books, the committee has shortlisted the publishers and selected only favoured ones. (ix) Out of 818 publishers, who have submitted their specimen copies of books, only 235 publishers were selected. 4. In W.P.Nos.26536 to 26538 of 2008, apart from the grounds which have been taken in the other writ petitions, the following grounds have been taken:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) The impugned amendment deviates from the procedure of harmonization of various other schemes such as "Ayyan Thiruvalluvar Library" and other scheme. The books were selected by the five members committee without going into the aspect of availability of such books and the need for additional books in the village libraries. (b) The impugned Government Order has given unbridled power to the second respondent to choose the members to the committee and the same has been exercised by him in a whimsical manner. The strength of the committee is also insufficient and the competency of the members is also questionable. (c) The decision making process of the members of the selection committee is also deplorable. The members are busy bodies heading important departments with vital administrative functions. The members did not read the books before making any recommendations, as is evident from the minutes of meeting dated 21.02.2008 wherein it is stated that three times the budgeted value of the books were shortlisted. 5. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents along with an application in M.P.No.4 of 2008 for vacating the interim order, wherein the following facts have been set out:- 5.1. G.O.Ms.No.97 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 13.06.2007 designated the District Collector as the tender inviting authority and later, the power was vested with the second authority by later Government Order dated 31.12.2007. Who should be the tender inviting authority is purely an internal executive decision of the Government and it in no way affected the rights of any book publishers or dealers. 5.2. The Government consciously took a decision to empower the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (herein after referred as DRD) to call for expression of interest at the State Level for supply of books from the publishers and dealers instead of District Collectors as originally envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 13.06.2007, because-- (i) The Collectors have multifarious duties and it would not be possible for them to involve themselves in the selection of books; (ii) The District Collectors, who are in mofussil, may not be as well placed as DRD, who is stationed at Chennai who would be in a position to rope in eminent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ academic / library experts such as Director of Public Libraries, Director of Tamil Development Department and Librarian of the University of Madras to select the books meant for this Scheme. (iii) There will be huge expenditure on advertisements and avoidable and wasteful paper work when each of the 30 District Collectors individually issues tender advertisements and processes the bids. (iv) When calling for tenders at the State Level, the DRD is better placed than the District Collectors in negotiating bulk discounts on the quoted price in the purchase of library books. (v) The books are selected at district level and each district may adopt different norms for selecting the authors, title and publishers of the books. (vi) Even from the point of view of the publishers / dealers, it is more convenient for them to participate in one single tender at the State level instead of participating in 30 District level tenders. 5.3. The advertisement published on 20.08.2007 had specifically mentioned that the DRD was calling for the expression of interest for supplying books. The writ petitioners knew very well even at the time of applying to the second respondent that it was the DRD and not the District Collectors who had called for the expression of interest and they did not choose to challenge the jurisdiction of the second respondent to call for tenders in the place of the District Collectors, but now they are challenging the same after a delay of nearly fourteen months only when they came to know that none of their titles have been selected. Thus, there is laches on the part of the petitioners and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine. 5.4. The rights of the petitioners or any other publishers have been altered in any manner by the fact that the DRD called for tender at the State level instead of the District Collectors calling for the same at the District level. 5.5. The total of 1,039 publishers / dealers expressed their interest for supply of books to the Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam (AGAMT) Village Libraries in response to the advertisement dated 20.08.2007. They have been asked to furnish particulars pertaining to their general standard and their capacity to deliver books in time if selected. Finally, 818 publishers / dealers furnished their particulars and were initially shortlisted. They furnished https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the list of books along with the cost of books and discount offered by them. 5.6. The District Level Committee is no way connected with the process of inviting or finalizing tenders for the purchase of library books or other components of AGAMT scheme as wrongly contended by the petitioners. To state that powers were taken away by the subsequent amendment is not at all the real case. 5.7. The books offered by 818 publishers / dealers were screened and analysed in detail by the members of the selection committee and a total of 3,335 books at a cost of Rs.1.41 lakhs were initially shortlisted. Since this was nearly three times the permitted budget for the village library, the selection committee once again went through shortlisting books and finally selected 858 books offered by 235 publishers / dealers and 548 authors to a total value of Rs.53,715/- out of which 689 books are in Tamil, 169 books are in English. 148 books are meant for children, 114 books for the youth, 93 books are of reference category, 86 books are about great leaders, 185 books fall into fiction category, 219 books are of non-fiction category and 13 books are on poetry. Thus, a sincere, fair objective careful and thorough exercise has been done through several sittings of the selection committee spread across a time period of about six months. Thus, the counter affidavit sought for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. Reply affidavit had been filed on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24770 to 24777 of 2008, wherein the following facts have been set out:- 6.1. A procedure established for the purpose of finalizing a tender cannot be altered after the tendering process has commenced. No material has been placed before this Court to establish that there was an exigency warranting amendment of G.O.Ms.No.97. In any event, such amendment cannot be retrospective especially after the tendering process has commenced. 6.2. There is no delay or laches since the petitioners have approached this Court well before the final decision was implemented. 6.3. When the tenders for the furniture, fixtures and fittings for the library are being done at the District level, the same principle ought to have been adopted for the purchase of library books. A library under the Scheme is intended to cater the needs of the local public of a Panchayat. Therefore, it is imperative that the facilities available in each Panchayat to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessed the nature of facilities and books available in such libraries and such other matters. 6.4. Without assessing these factors, the respondents cannot resort to a state wide procurement of books. The laudable objective behind the Scheme has been defeated by the impugned amendment. The alleged constitution of the selection committee by the second respondent does not serve the purpose of the Scheme. None of the members of the committee would be aware as to the individual requirement of each library. Their personal qualification and position would not be relevant for the purpose of the present tender since the Government issued the Scheme with the avowed object to impart education at the Panchayat level and at the same time to ensure that the new libraries work along with the existing facilities. 6.5. If the District Level Committee cannot find time to select the books within the stipulated time, the State Level Committee having more responsibilities than that of the District Level Committee will also not find time in selecting the books for the Village Libraries. 7. I have heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24770 to 24777 of 2008, Mr.J.Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26536 to 26538 of 2008 and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. Their arguments centred around the pleadings. 8. Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners:- 8.1. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel / learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that once a procedure had been prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.97 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 13.06.2007, the further notification issued in respect of mode of purchase in selection of the books to the Scheme amounts to variation and the same cannot be done without notice to the petitioners, which is violative of the principles of natural justice. The District Collector was empowered to select books by constituting a committee of 16 members, who could be the competent persons to select books. While so, employing the Director of Rural Development (DRD) by himself or by constituting a committee on his own would defeat the very purpose of the Scheme. Further, it is contended that to favour certain individuals, the selection process has been changed. Further it is contended that the notification should have been made after amendment empowering the Director of Rural Development to select the books. Collection of books could be done only by a person, who knows about the wants of the villagers. The District Collector would be knowing how much amount to be spent to each village. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26536 to 26538 of 2008 would further contend that the object should be from the ground level and not from the higher level. The object is sought to be achieved only through the ground level. Further, the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.208 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 31.12.2007 could only be prospective and not retrospective. It is also not known whether the five member committee followed the objective laid down in G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 13.06.2007. There is nothing to indicate that the guidelines given in G.O.Ms.No.97 are followed or given a go-by. The decision making process of the committee without having books on their hand vitiates the entire selection. 9. Contentions raised on behalf of the respondents:- 9.1. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would contend that changing of the authority for selection of books would no way affect the rights of the publishers of the books. In fact, tender has been called for only by the second respondent. The petitioners who were keeping quiet for more than fourteen months, when they came to know of the fact that they have not been selected, have rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petitions. Thus, it is a clear case of laches on the part of the petitioners. The second respondent had been authorised to select the books formed by a committee, which has taken all efforts in selecting the books, which cannot be under any stretch of imagination could be said to favour few individuals. The object of the subsequent amendment empowering the second respondent to select the books along with the committee has been clearly enumerated in the counter affidavit, which deserves appreciation. The petitioners who have participated in the tender knowing well that the second respondent has called for the tender, cannot be heard to say so after fourteen months that too after they have not been selected, which is totally unacceptable. 10. About the Scheme:- 10.1. The Government of Tamil Nadu seems to have launched a Scheme viz., Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam (AGAMT), 100% a State Government funded scheme from the year 2006- 07 onwards with the aim to mobilize resources in the Village Panchayats and to improve its physical and social infrastructure facilities over a period of five years i.e., till 2010-2011. Pursuant to the same, it has been ordered in G.O.Ms.No.115 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 11.09.2006 to set up village libraries in 1/5th of the Village Panchayats every year starting from 2006-07. These Village Libraries will be under the control and run by the Village Panchayats themselves. The Rural Development and panchayat Raj Department seems to have taken up the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ responsibility of extending the library movement to all Village panchayats in the State. 10.2. For the effective implementation of the Scheme, the second respondent seems to have submitted certain proposals to the Government which were accepted by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.97 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (SGS-2) dated 13.06.2007 came to be issued. As per Clause 10 of the said Government Order, Development Level committee of 16 members under the Chairmanship of District Collector has been formed. The Government, later thought it fit to empower the Director of Rural Development to call for expression of interest at the State Level for supply of books from the publishers and the dealers for AGAMT libraries instead of District Collectors as originally envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.97 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (SGS-2) dated 13.06.2007, for the reasons enumerated in the counter affidavit, by G.O.Ms.No.208 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 31.12.2007 and the consequential G.O.Ms.No.88, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 05.06.2008. 11. Reasonings:- 11.1. The rights of the writ petitioners or any other publishers have not been altered in any manner since the Director of Rural Development called for tender at the State Level instead of District Collectors calling for the same at the District Level. As per G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 31.12.2007 empowering the Director of Rural Development to constitute a committee of eminent personalities in this field to select the books, a selection committee seems to have been constituted by proceedings dated 21.10.2008 of the second respondent whose members are set out here under:- (i) Director of Public Libraries. (ii) Director of Tamil Development Department. (iii) Librarian, University of Mandras. (iv) Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (Convener of the Committee) (v) Additional Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (Schemes). It is stated at the end of the Government that those persons have got immense knowledge of libraries and books and the Rural literacy movement and they are well versed in both Tamil and English and possess immense knowledge and experience of the type of the books needed for a village library / rural clientele. When such a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statement had been made at the end of the Government, the same cannot be doubted by this Court on assumption or presumption of the petitioners. No inference can be drawn by this Court on mere suspicion raised on the side of the petitioners. This Court cannot say that the District Collector and the 16 officials alone are competent to select the books and not the Director of Rural Development and the committee appointed by him. It is not within the purview of this Court to say so. 11.2. It has also to be seen that advertisement calling for expression of interest for supply of books to AGAMT village libraries was published in "The New Indian Express" and 'Dinathanthi" dated 20.08.2007 in the name of the Director of Rural Development. The petitioners have not chosen to challenge the jurisdiction of the second respondent to call for the tender in the place of the