JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J. — Since all these writ petitions involve quite common questions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2.WP(C) No. 19214 of 2010 has been filed by Sri Tapan Jena, the proprietor of M/s. Jasoda Road Lines challenging sub-clauses 19(a) & (b) and 26 of Clause XIX of the terms and conditions of the Tender Call Notice dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Managing Director of the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation, a State Government Undertaking, for transportation of rice and similar goods.

WP(C) No. 19215 of 2010 has been filed by M/s. Jasoda Road Lines through its proprietor Sri Tapan Jena challenging sub-clauses 17(a) and (b) and 23 of Clause XIX of the terms and conditions of the Tender Call Notice dated 31.10.2010 issued by the Managing Director of the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation for transportation of gunny bags and similar packaging materials.

WP(C) No. 19491 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner challenging sub-clauses 19(a) and (b) of Clause XIX of the terms and conditions of the Tender Call Notice dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Managing Director of the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation for Earnest Money Deposit (in short, “EMD” of Rs.10,00,000/- for each of the source districts indicated at Sls. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (viii) in paragraph ‘A’ and security deposit of Rs.50 lakhs for entire source districts.

WP(C) No. 19060 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner, who is a storage agent, challenging sub-clause 19(a) of Clause XIX of the terms and conditions of the Tender Call Notice dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Managing Director of the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation, vide Annexure-2.

In WP(C) Nos. 19552, 19804, 19805 and 19806 of 2010, the petitioners have challenged sub-clauses 19(a) and (b) of Clause XIX and Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the terms and conditions of the Tender Call Notice dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Managing Director, Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., vide Annexure-1.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid clauses violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) read with Clause 6 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that imposition of such restrictions/prohibitions not having been backed by law and there being no law in the field to put such restrictions/prohibitions, the terms and conditions of the impugned tender call notices are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India within the expanded definition of property and right to do trade and business and the authorities keeping in mind to issue work order in favour of some specific persons published the impugned Tender Call Notices dated 25.10.2010 and 31.10.2010 which are totally different from the tender issued by the said authorities in the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

4.In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners cited an unreported decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 18496 of 2009 (Utkal Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers Association & another v. State of Orissa & others) disposed of on 20th December, 2010 and a decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India and another v. International Trading Co. and another, (2003) 5 SCC 437.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of Lal Babu Prasad v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1989 Patna 68, Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and others etc. etc., AIR 1982 SC 33, Udai Singh Dagar & others v. Union of India & others, AIR 2007 SC 2599, M/s. Vij Resins Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of J & K and others, AIR 1989 SC 1629, Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies & another, AIR 2009 SC 2894, Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1963 SC 1295 and Reliance Energy Ltd. and another v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and others, (2007) 8