JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed with the prayers that notice dated December 18, 1990 and tenders called on January 9, 1991 by the Municipal Council, Jaipur, from general public be quashed and a direction be given that tenders for dead animals & bones be invited only from the Registered Co-operative Societies. 2. The petitioner-Society was registered as Co-operative Society on November 13, 1984. Its members consist of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste & minor community, who traditionally carry on the occupation of collection & skinning of dead animals, hides & bones. It is submitted by Mr. N.A. Naqvi, learned counsel, that a representation was given to the Hon'ble Minister for Local Self, Government of Rajasthan, on December 12, 1983, praying that the petitioner- society be given contract for a period of five years on preferential basis and auction for 1983-84 be postponed. Non- petitioner No. 2, Municipal Council, Jaipur, held auction in July, 1984 for removal of dead animals & their bones within Jaipur Municipal limits. The petitioner-Society filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1016/84, which was decided on January 17,1985. In this writ petition, according to learned counsel, a direction was given that "Municipal Council as well as the State Government should lay down proper guidelines in the matter of grant of contracts for the removal of dead bodies or animals on preferential basis and on long term basis to the Co-operative Societies or persons who are originally or were carrying on the work of skinning dead animals." This has also been reproduced in para 3 of the petition. Thereafter, it is further submitted that respondent No. 2 published an advertisement and invited tenders on August 13, 1985 for a period of five years. The petitioner's bid was accepted by respondent No. 2 and contract was awarded to it from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1990. One Gulam Mustafa filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1361/85, for quashing the advertisement dated August 13, 1985, inviting tenders only from the Registered Co-operative Societies. The petitioner applied and was impleaded as party to this petition. The petitioner's bid was accepted by respondent No. 2 and contract was awarded to it from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1990. One Gulam Mustafa filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1361/85, for quashing the advertisement dated August 13, 1985, inviting tenders only from the Registered Co-operative Societies. The petitioner applied and was impleaded as party to this petition. This petition was rejected vide order dated December 6, 1985 and it was observed that "there can hardly be any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a case where preference is given to a Co-operative Society in comparison to an individual for doing the job of lifting and removing the carcasses of dead animal ............ the Municipal Council should consider the case of Society for grant of contract to it on a preferential basis and on long term basis." This portion of the order has been reproduced in para 5 of the petition. It is further submitted that Gulam Mustafa filed a D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 23/86, which was also rejected on June 30,1986. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in terms & conditions attached with tenders invited on August 13, 1985, it was clearly mentioned in para 1 of the same that the contract will be given only to such Co-operative Society, which is registered and does the work of removing the skins & bones etc of dead animals. In para No. 2, it was further mentioned that amongst Co-operative Societies, such Societies will be given preference, who are capable of establishing flying centre approved/ recognised by the Rajasthan Khadi Board. However, now, fresh tenders have been invited by respondent No. 2 on December 15, 1990 vide advertisement dated December 18, 1990 (Anx.1) which was published in Rajasthan Patrika, in which, it is mentioned that the general public, who may desire to have the contract can also apply and tenders have not been restricted to registered Co-operative Societies alone, as was done while inviting tenders in the earlier instance. It is submitted that in this advertisement, it has been, of course, mentioned that preference shall be given to registered Co-operative Societies. It is submitted that in this advertisement, it has been, of course, mentioned that preference shall be given to registered Co-operative Societies. It is contended by the learned counsel that all this has been done, ignoring the decision and directions given by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1016/84, filed by the petitioner decided on January 7, 1985 and S. B. civil Writ Petition No. 1361/85, decided on December 6,1985 which was filed by one Gulam Mustafa. It is contended that respondent No. 2 could invite tenders only from the registered Co-operative Societies and none else, as directed by this Court in the above-mentioned two writ petitions. 4. It is submitted by Mr. A. K. Bhandari and Mr. Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, that no order by this Court has been passed as claimed by the petitioner that the tenders should be invited only from the registered Co-operative Societies. It is further submitted that merely because once the tenders were invited from the Registered Co-operative Societies, the respondents cannot be bound to continue to do so, since forever. It is also submitted that last time only one tender was received from the petitioner-Society, on account of which, the respondent-Municipal council had to suffer substantial loss of revenue as there was no healthy competition, while inviting tenders. At the time of inviting tenders, it was clearly mentioned that Co-operative Societies will be given preference, while awarding the contract. According to learned counsel, this is in accordance with the directions given by this Court in the writ petitions mentioned above. It is pointed out that several complaints were received against the petitioner and reports, regarding lying dead animals in the main market of jaipur, were also published in the media from time to time. Hence, warnings were issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that every citizen of India has a right to do his business and, therefore, should be free to participate in the tenders to obtain contract, which will be denied to individual citizen if the plea of petitioner is accepted. This will result in'violation of the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. 1 have heard both The parties and also gone through the documents on record. This will result in'violation of the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. 1 have heard both The parties and also gone through the documents on record. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a direction has been given by this Court in the orders mentioned above that the tenders should be invited only from the Co-operative Societies, which implies that private individuals/citizens should not be allowed to participate in such contracts. Article 14 lays down that "State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." Thus, this article speaks of equality before the law while equality before the law is some-what a negative concept implying the absence of any privilege in favour of any individual and the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law, equal protection of the law is a more positive concept, implying equality of treatment in equal circumstances. Equality before the law is, therefore, a concept of the Rule of law. Equality of laws also implies that amongst equals, the law should be equal and equally administered. It means that there should be equal treatment in similar circumstances. However, if there is any "reasonable" basis for classification, the Legislature would be entitled to make a different treatment. In order to be "reasonable", a classification must not be arbitrary, but must be rational and must have a reasonable relation to the object to be achieved by the Legislation. It was observed by the Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others AIR 1979 SC 1628 that "Equality of opportunity should apply to matters of public contracts.... The State has duty to observe equality. An ordinary individual can choose not to deal with any person. The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by discrimination". The question, therefore arises for consideration is whether a monopoly can be created in respect of the contract of removing dead animals and skins etc. in favour of a particular section of the Society which, in the present case, is Co-operative Society, ignoring the other private individuals, who may also like to do the same business ? The question, therefore arises for consideration is whether a monopoly can be created in respect of the contract of removing dead animals and skins etc. in favour of a particular section of the Society which, in the present case, is Co-operative Society, ignoring the other private individuals, who may also like to do the same business ? Time and again, the Apex Court has observed that no monopoly can be created in favour of a particular section, which may result in discriminaton to the other sections of the citizens of this country. Reference may be made to Ramanlal Nagdas v. M. S. Palnitakar, AIR 1961 Guj.38. in which the validity of the State action in entrusting the wholesale distribution of sugar, which is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to Co-operative Societies only, and excluding other dealers, was challenged. The question was considered from the point of view of Article 14 of the Constitution and it was held that the action of the State Government in entrusting wholesale distribution of sugar to Cooperative Societies only to the exclusion of other licence holders amounted to a discrimination, which violated the right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In Mannalal Jain v. State of Assam AIR 1963 SC 386. , while considering a similar situation, it was held by the Apex Court that "it seems quite clear that Cooperative Societies form a class by themselves and a provision giving preference to such a class would be a good provision, because the object of the Act would be better served thereby for reasons earlier mentioned, such provision would have a clear nexus with the object and, therefore, satisfy the test of Article-14." In M. P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M. P. AIR 1981 SC 2001 . , while considering the question of same nature, it was observed by the Apex Court that "there is an intelligible differential between the retail dealers, who are nothing but traders and consumers' co-operative societies. The position would be different, if there was a monopoly created in favour of the latter. The scheme only envisages a rule of preference. , while considering the question of same nature, it was observed by the Apex Court that "there is an intelligible differential between the retail dealers, who are nothing but traders and consumers' co-operative societies. The position would be different, if there was a monopoly created in favour of the latter. The scheme only envisages a rule of preference. The formulation of the scheme does not exclude the retail traders from making an application for appointment as agents." It is evident from the passage quoted above that the Apex Court clearly indicated that a monopoly cannot be created, even in favour of consumer Cooperative Societies. In Hrudananda v.Revenue Divisional Commissioner,AIR 1979 Orissa 13 an auction of two quarries was made in which individuals were the highest bidders. However, the contract was settled in favour of a co-operative Society, who had earlier defaulted & misconducted itself in various ways while complying with the terms & conditions of the lease of the previous order. It was held that this was violative of Article 19 (1) (g) read with Article 14 and private individuals cannot be excluded.in this manner, which had created a monopoly at the threshold in favour of the Co-operative Society to the exclusion of the highest bidder. Therefore, it is clear from the law discussed above that monopoly cannot be created even in favour of Co-operative Societies and more so a Co-operative society cannot claim to be given monopoly in doing a particular trade. 6. It will also be necessary to examine carefully earlier decisions of this Court referred to by the petitioner. The first decision was given in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1016/84, decided on January 7, 1985, which was filed by the petitioner. On page 3 of this order, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel is mentioned, in which the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly stated that the Municipal Council should have given preference to the Society in comparison to the private contractors. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in the above-mentioned petition, clearly indicates that, even the petitioner itself claimed preference and not monopoly, as now claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in the above-mentioned petition, clearly indicates that, even the petitioner itself claimed preference and not monopoly, as now claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the same order, on the last page, which is No. 7, a clear direction was given by the learned Judge to the effect that "the Municipal Council should consider the case of the Society for grant of future contracts to it on preferential and long term basis. If the Rules and bye-laws stand in the way of granting such contracts on long term basis, the same should be suitably amended." Thus, it is clear that in the above-mentioned petition, this Court did not give any such direction as to create monopoly in favour of the co-operative Societies and debarring the private individuals from applying to get the contract. The second order dated December 6, 1986 of this Court was passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1361/85 (Gulam Mustafa v. Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur) . The petitioner, in this petition, contended that the Municipal Council, Jaipur should not have issued an advertisement, in which it was mentioned that tenders may be filed by the Co-operative Societies only. The learned Judge, in the last para starting on page 5, stated that "there can be hardly any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a case where preference is given to a Co-operative Society in comparison to an individual for doing the job of lifting and removing the carcasses of dead animals." It was further observed on page 6 that "Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Sahakari Samiti, submitted that the accounts of the Society have been audited. I am not concerned with the above objection as already there is direction given by Hon'ble Agarwal, J. that question whether this society is sham one can be determined by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. It has already been observed in the above case that the Municipal Council should consider the case of the Society for grant of future contracts on preferential basis & long term basis." Therefore, it was held that the Municipal Council did not violate the directions given to it in the earlier S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1016/84. A. D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 23/86 was filed against this order, which was decided on June 30,1986. A. D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 23/86 was filed against this order, which was decided on June 30,1986. While dismissing the Special Appeal, it was held by the learned Division Bench that "we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that co-operative society as a class could be given preference over individuals, in the matter of granting contracts by the State or local bodies." Thus, it is clear from the abovementioned two orders that what has been directed always is that preference should be given to the co-operative societies in comparison to individuals. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the first contract given to the petitioner-Society, it was clearly mentioned in para 1 of Conditions of Contract (Anx.2) that only co-operative societies will file the tenders and preference shall be given to such Societies, which are recognised by the Rajasthan Khadi Board. It is, therefore, pointed out that this year also, only Co-operative Societies should have been called upon to submit tenders and individuals should not have been allowed to do so. It may be pointed out that in the order dated 13.8.85 (Anx.2), it is also mentioned at S. No.9 that if the tender is cancelled as per condition No.5, then it will not be necessary to give contract to Co-operative Societies. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that it has been clearly mentioned in Anx. 4, Conditions of contract, that preference shall be given to Cooperative Society. From the decisions of this Court, referred to above and the law discussed on this point, it is clear that the Co-operative Societies are entitled only to be given preference and there is no such direction that the contract may be awarded to the Co-operative Societies alone. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel that in several Departments of Rajasthan, including Fisheries Department, tenders are invited from all citizens, including Co-operative Societies, but preference is given to Co-operative Societies while awarding the contract. It was submitted that when the last contract was given, the only applicant was petitioner-Society and the contract had to be given to it. This results in substantial loss of revenue to the Municipal council, Jauipr, which can ill-afford_to lose revenue like this. Healthy competition is always necessary to get maximum revenue and preference will be given to the Co-operative Societies. This results in substantial loss of revenue to the Municipal council, Jauipr, which can ill-afford_to lose revenue like this. Healthy competition is always necessary to get maximum revenue and preference will be given to the Co-operative Societies. It was further submitted that several complaints were received against the petitioner-Society during the last period of contract, which was for five years. There is no doubt that it is important for respondent No. 2 Municipal Council to earn reasonable revenue, while giving any contract. It is in public interest that the Government/State instrumentalities should act in such a manner that results in bringing sufficient revenue in its hands. It was observed by the Apex court in Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana AIR 1985 SC 1147 . that "the Government, therefore, cannot for example give a contract or sell or lease out its property for a consideration less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of course there are other considerations which render it reasonable and in public interest to do so." Therefore, while considering the matter from any angle, it cannot be said that the Co-operative Societies alone are entitled to get the contract, while debarring the private individuals. 7. In the result, I do not find any force in this writ petition, which is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******