Musahary, J.

1. A change over in the age old method of procurement of essential dietary and non dietary items for jail inmates has been ordered by the Government through an office memorandum bearing No.HMB.247/2006/30 dated 7.1.2012. The respondent-Inspector General of Prison, in execution thereof, cancelled the earlier notice inviting tender (NIT) for supply of dietary items to jail for the year 2011-2012 and called for fresh tenders. The relevant cancellation order was published in a local English daily "The Assam Tribune", Guwahati in its issue dated 21.1.2012. Eight petitioners are before us. They say they are educated, unemployed and earning their livelihood engaging themselves in the business of supply of various items/articles to various departments of the State as well as Central Government on contract basis. Further they say they have been awarded contracts for supply of ration under the group A,B,C,D & E to various jails for last several years. They say there was an NIT issued for district-wise supply of dietary items to jails under Grade A,B,C,D,E, & F for the year 2011-12 and they submitted their respective tenders. The said NIT has been cancelled and a fresh tender was ordered. The petitioners say they are affected by the said decision of Government and action of the respondent, Inspector General of Prisons (I. G. Prisons in short). They take on them as " arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, unfair, unconstitutional, malafide and high handed". We have heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam for the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, first of all, submits that as per provisions under Rule-8 of the Rules for Management of Jails in Assam (hereinafter referred to as "Management Rules" only), the I.G. Prisons has no authority to issue NIT and the same is well fortified by the provisions of Management Rules 742,743,744 of the Management Rules. Rule 743 casts a duty upon the superintendent of Jailor to make their purchases and the said power, under no circumstances, can be taken away by the I.G. Prisons.

3. Secondly he submits that by issuing the impugned O.M. dated 7.1.2012, the respondent State has constituted five different zones in the State and authorized the I.G. Prisons to issue NIT and initiate process centrally for procurement and supply of dietary and non-dietary articles directly to all the Jails falling in the groups as per rates fixed by the purchasing committee of each group and thereby it has departed from the existing method/procedure under Rules 742/743/744 of the Management Rules. The said rules vest the Superintendent of Jails with power to issue/initiate tender process by giving prime consideration to the cheapest market and facilities for cheap carriage. The method/ procedure followed by the respondents being a deviation from ones prescribed under the said Rule is contrary to the principle laid down in famous case of Nazir Ahmed -vs- King Emperor; reported in AIR 1936 PC 253, which is being followed till today. Following the said principle the Apex Court in Laxmi Verma -vs- State of Maharashtra and ors, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 329 held that an obligation created by statute to perform an act in a manner provided under the Act, if not complied would be rendered redundant and invalid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners a similar thing has happened in the present case inasmuch as the Respondents have taken the impugned decision and action in complete disregard to the well settled principle of law that where a power is given to do a certain things in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. If the said principle of law is applied, the impugned OM, Notification and the action taken so far by the respondents are liable to be declared illegal and unauthorized. In this regard the learned counsel persuaded the c