Important Point—Where facts are undisputed and Government has been found acting unjustly, unfairly and unreasonably even in regard to its contractual obligations, High Court would be justified in issuing writ of mandamus.

1. Since the facts and question of law involved in these writ petitions are common, hence the same were heard together and being decided by this judgment.

2. To avoid repetition, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3677/2015 are taken for consideration.

3. The respondent issued a notice, which was published in a daily newspaper ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ on 23.02.2013, inviting online tender for purchase of Sabla kits. Last date for submission of tender was fixed up to 01.03.2013 and the date for opening the tenders was fixed at 3:00 PM on 04.03.2013. Premier Printing Press is engaged in the business of print work, in response to the tender notice issued by the respondent on 23.02.2013, submitted his bids along-with required documents. The respondents, vide letter dated 15.03.2013, required the petitioner to deposit security amount of Rs.6.31 lakhs and also required the petitioner to execute an agreement on stamp paper of Rs.5000/- within three days. The petitioner complied with both the requirements. The respondents thereafter gave work order to the petitioner for supplying 16150 sabla kits all over the Rajasthan, vide work order dated 28.03.2013. As per case of petitioner, it prepared 16150 sabla kids within the prescribed time. The purchase committee of the respondent department inspected all 16150 sabla kits and also obtained samples of one training kit, which was sent for testing to MSME Testing Station. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application to the respondent to give the supply order. The respondent department required the petitioner to supply 9960 sabla kits vide work order no. 56120 dated 24.09.2013, requiring the petitioner to further supply 9960 sabla kits up to 03.10.2013. The petitioner, vide letter dated 26.09.2013, requested the respondents to grant it 30 days time for supplying the said kits and according to the petitioner further supply order of remaining kits was also issued. The petitioner then requested that supply order of remaining kits may also be given. On request of the petitioner, the respondent extended the time to supply sabla kits up to 11.10.2013. The petitioner, in this phase, supplied 9960 sabla kits to the concerned projects in various districts of the State of Rajasthan up to the prescribed time. The respondent thereafter issued sanction order dated 20.11.2013 for payment in favour of the petitioner, however, did not issue the work order for supply of remaining kits.

4. Major R.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for petitioner, argued that the respondents gave purchase order to the petitioner for supply of 16150 sabla kits. The petitioner accordingly prepared all the sabla training kits but work order for supply of remaining kits was not placed. The petitioner therefore requested the respondent by various letter such as letters dated 02.12.2013, 10.12.2013, 01.01.2014, 17.01.2014, 03.04.2014, 02.06.2014 and 13.11.2014, making similar requests. When all aforesaid letters/applications failed to evoke any response, the petitioner through his advocate served legal notice for demand of justice on the respondent on 27.12.2014. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1012/2015 before this court, which came to be decided vide order dated 29.01.2015. This court required the petitioner to approach the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Women Empowerment and Child Development Department, to take appropriate action with regard to supply of remaining sabla kits or otherwise decide the representation by reasoned order within a period of six weeks. The petitioner thereupon made a detailed representation on 03.02.2015, and the respondent disposed of the same by order dated 12.03.2015 stating the reason that as per supply order sabla kits have already been received and payment has already been made. Supply of remaining kits cannot be placed. It I argued that the respondents have on one hand rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dat