Sudhir Singh, J.

In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the Govt. Resolution No. 5676 (S) dated 24.06.2015 contained in 'Annexure-4' by which Rule 159 (k)(i) of Bihar Public Works Department Code, has been amended, by which publication of tender notice in News paper and/or Internet for Public Works Contracts of estimated cost of Rs. 15 Lacs or lesser amount has been made inapplicable, and its consequential amendment in 159 (kh) of the same Code, and another Govt. Resolution No. 5931 (s) dated 01.07.2015 as contained in 'Annexure-5' by which 50% of the Public Works Contracts of estimated cost up to Rs. 15 lacs or lesser amount, being reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Extremely Backward Class, Backward Class and Women of Backward Class, as follows :

i. Scheduled Caste - 16.00%

ii. Scheduled Tribes - 1.00%

iii. Extremely Backward class - 18.00%

iv. Backward class - 12.00%

v. Women of Backward class - 3.00%

Total - 50.00%

Remaining 50% of work shall be available for all categories.

2. The petitioner has challenged the above referred resolutions as being, violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 38 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a registered contractor, under Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. The government resolutions referred above, are arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. By virtue of amendments under challenge in Bihar Public Works Department Code, the government has taken a decision that publication of tender notice, in the news paper or Internet is not necessary, in respect of Public Works Contract having estimated cost of Rs. 15 lacs or lesser amount, and vide Govt. Resolution No. 5931 dated 01.07.2015, 50% of such Public Works Contracts have been reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Extremely Backward Class, Backward Class and Women of Backward Class. Absence of publication of tender notice would give rise to arbitrariness and monopoly, and implementation of reservation policy in such Public Works Contract, is violative of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the impugned resolutions are not violative of any fundamental right, guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Article 38 of the Constitution under Part IV, directs the State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of people and to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate the inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that Article 46 of the Constitution directs that State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interest of the weaker sections of the people.

5. At this juncture, we may point out that such challenge, regarding validity of any 'law' is made in terms of Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India, which reads thus:

"Art.13 (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this part and any law made in contravention of this Clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void."

6. The term 'law' in Article 13 of the Constitution has been given a vide connotation so as to include any ordinance, order, by law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law. This means that not only a piece of legislation but any of the things mentioned under clause (3)(a) of Article 13 of the Constitution of India can be challenged as infringing a fundamental right.

7. Here, the challenge is made to the resolutions of the State Government contained in Annexure-4 and Annexure-5. In the case of Madhya Pradesh v. Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493, it has been held that a resolution passed by a State Government under Fundamental Rule 44 of the State is a 'law'. Even, an administrative order has been held to be a law under Article 13 of the Constitution of India, b