Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. -the petitioners in the present writ application have prayed for quashing of the letter, contained in memo 830 dated 10-1-1995 (annexure 1) whereby and whereunder the Academic Registrar; Bihar state Text Book Publishing Corporation Limited (for short as corporation)has expressed inability to place orders for printing of books for the Corporation, in view of the order dated 5-12-1994 (annexure 2), passed by the industrial Development Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Appellate Committee, bihar, Patna (respondent No.4) in exercise of the powers under Rule 15 of the Bihar Stores Purchase Preference Rules, 1971 (for short as rules), as contained in Government Resolution No.19306 dated 22-10-1975 (annexure 4) besides quashing of the aforesaid order as well as the Government Resolution whereby and whereunder the decision has been taken that in future cent percent printing works for the Corporation shall be done by the printers units within the State. 2. The relveant facts of the instant case lie in a narrow compass The bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd. is a company, 100% share of which are owned by the Governor of Bihar and as such, it is the instrumentality of the State under the Constitution of India. The said Corporation provides text books to the students in various schools of the State of Bihar at a reasonable/subsidised price and at appropriate time. The Corporation has its own printing press, but as it is not able to meet the printing of all books which are required by the students studying in various schools of Bihar, it places orders for printing of books to various printers in the form of work contract every year. The petitioners are. owners of printing units situated outside the State of Bihar. They claim that in the past they got printing orders from the Corppration since the year \ 978 and all the times they supplied printed books in time and there has been no complaint at any point of time by the respondent Corporation relating to the quality of work and stipulation of time from the petitioners. 3. In the year 1994 the respondent Corporation had a printing plan of 148.20 lacs text books, out of which private printing presses were allotted job work for printing of 111.05 lacs text books. 3. In the year 1994 the respondent Corporation had a printing plan of 148.20 lacs text books, out of which private printing presses were allotted job work for printing of 111.05 lacs text books. However, on the basis of mid-term review of the performance of the private printing presses a small portion of job work i. e. printing of 7.80 lacs of taxt books were shifted to private printing presses outside the State, out of which the petitioner No.1 was also given job work for 5 40 lacs text books and printing of 3.40 lacs text books were allotted to the Eagle Offset Press, Allahabad. No job was given to petitioner No.2 in the year 1994. 4. Against the said allotment of job work the petitioner No.1 and the eagle Offset Press. Allahabad an appeal was preferred by the Bihar Offest printers Association (Respondent No.6) under Rules 15 of the Rules before the Appellate Committee for quashing of the same. It appears the respondent corporation took the stand that the aforesaid rules do not apply to job work of printing and it is unavoidably necessary for the Corporation to give job work to competent private presses outside the State for ensuring timely availability of school text books in the State. The Appellate Committee vide order dated 5-12-54, impugned in the present writ application, held that the rule is applicable to the job work of printing as well, and issued direction to allot 100 percent of job work to private printing presses within the State in future. 5. As usual in January, 1995 the petitioners filed application requesting the respondent Corporation for placing orders for printing text books for the years 1995-96 and while they were expecting an appropriate order in their favour, the respondent Corporation all of a sudden came out with the imdugned letter dated 10-1-1995 (annexure 1) by which the petitioners were intimated that as per the order dated 5-12-94 of the Appellate Committee, the respondent Corporation is not entitled to give orders to them. A copy of the said order dated 5-12-54 of the Appellate Committee was also forwarded to the petitioners along with the aforesaid letter (annexure 1 ). 6. A copy of the said order dated 5-12-54 of the Appellate Committee was also forwarded to the petitioners along with the aforesaid letter (annexure 1 ). 6. The case of the petitioner is that the said order of the Appellate committee has to be approved by the Minister Incharge of the Industries department, but from bare persual of the impugned order, dated 5-12-94 it would appear that no approval has been taken from the Minister. 7. Besides challenging the validity of the rules on the ground that the same is only an administrative circular of the State Government and has not been framed by any legislative body and that it amounts to total prohibition on placing orders for printing of books to the printers outside the State of bihar is violative of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioners have also contended that the impugned order (annexure 2) adversely affecting the right and interest was passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, when challenged before the Appellate Committee was made by respondent No.6 against the allotment made in favour of the petitioner No. I, it was incumbent upon the Appellate committee to have given notice/opportunity to the said petitioner before passing the impugned orders But that having not been done, the action of the Appellate Committee is vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. 9. It is also contended by the petitioners that the said rules give preference to small scale industries with respect to the goods manufactured and supplied by the small scale industries only in the matter of price to the tune of 5% to 15% and for no other purpose Thus, according to the petitioners the order of the Appellate Committed is at any rate ultra vires to said rules. 10. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Corporation and its Acadmic Registrar (respondent Nos.1 and 2) and State of bihar and Joint Director of Industries (respondent Nos.1 and 5 respectively)Jn the counter affidavit of respondent Nos.1 and 2 it is stated that the Human resources Development, Government of Bihar is its administrative department and it functions under the guidance and control of Bureau of Public enterprises Government of Bihar. 11. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and joint Director, Industries inter alia it it contended that the rale is not based on administrative instructions, rather it is a resolution in which the concurrences of, the Council of Ministers has beer, obtained and that the said rules do not impose any restriction on trade commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India. It simply envisages to give preference and to promote the small scale printing units in comparison to the units of the other States. It is also contended that the printing units of outside State are free to trade and do their business and get printing orders in Bihar from other sources barring State Government/corporation/board/authority, whose purchasing orders are guided and governed by the Bihar State purchase preference Rules, 1971, which has been made to give priority to industrial units of the State in purchase of their produced goods. 12. In paragraph 10 of the said counter affidavit which deals with the aforementioned appeal it is stated that the order of the Appellate Committee has been approved by the Minister of Industries and all contrary statements made have been denied. 13. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Bihar Offset printers Association (respondent No.6) which has claimed to be a Registered association under the Societies Registration Act and their members are all small scale industries engaged in offset printing in the State of Bihar. The stand of the respondent No.6 in the said counter affidavit is that the petitioners have no legal right to compel respondent No.1 to allot work to them and that it is the sole prerogative of respondent No.1 to allot work to any body it likes and in doing so it is free to act as per advice and/or order of the state Government. Further, it is stated that Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution is not attracted as the impugned orders do not restrict any right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Moreover, the petitioners being a firm and not a citizen do not possess any fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) as it is a right available to an individual and not to a firm. Moreover, the petitioners being a firm and not a citizen do not possess any fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) as it is a right available to an individual and not to a firm. It is also contended that the impugned order do not violate the provisions contained in Article 301 and or 304 of the Constitution as in no way they restrict freedom of trade, commerce among States and even if they put ban as alleged by the petitioners, there is a nexus behind it and the same in any case definitely in the interest of public of the State, which is permissible in law. 14. The Rules provide for giving preferance to small and cottage Industries of Bihar while making purchase and and lays down various guidelines to be followed by the Goverment Department Corporation Boards Authorities including respondent no.1 in that regard. As such, according to the said respondent No.6, the interpretation put forth by the petitioner that it is not meant for printing work is ill-founded. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it is claimed that the members of respondent No.6 are capable of performing all works of the respondent No.1 even without any price preference and as such, as per the scheme of the said Rules they are entitled to get entire work orders. It is also alleged that the printers outside the State were given work orders at higher rates. 15. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it is stated that earlier also in appeal No.2/21 of 1986 there was direction to give entire work only to units of the State against which one M/s Bhargava Offset, Varanasi which is a sister concern of petitioner No.1 filed writ petition being C. W. J. C. No.4785/86 in this Court but the same was dismissed on 15-12-86. Against the said order of dismissal the petitioner of the said case filed Civil Appeal No.2554/88 before the Supreme Court, which also was finally dismissed and as such, the present writ application is not maintainable being hit by principles of res judicata as also of constructive res judicata It may be pertinent to mention here that earlier, the aforesaid writ application was summarily dismissed vide order dated 15-12-86 (annexurn B) to the intervenors application filed by Krishnabllabh Pd Singh claiming to be President of Udyog pronnati Parishad. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No.255/88 vide order dated 14-5-1987 issued notice and pending notice granted ex parie stay permitting printing of books outside the State of Bihar, as required by the Corporation. Finally vide order dated 8-8-1988 specal leave was granted by the Supreme Court and stay was confirmed. However, on 21st February, 1990 the Suprme Court granted two weeks time for taking steps to comply with the requirement and on failure to do so, the appeal was to stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. As pursuant to the said order needful was not done by the appellants, the appeal was dismissed and the interim order was vacated. 16. An intervention application under Rule 5 of Chapter XXI of Patna high Court Rules read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india was filed on behalf of one Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh, claiming to be President, Udyog Pronnoti Parishad for being beard in opposition of the instant writ application the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 6-4-y5, while admitting the writ application, referred the matter to be heard by an appropriate Division Bench and observed that the Bench hearing the matter would decide the question of intervention at the time of hearing the case. 17. It is also alleged that the writ petitioners and the petitioner in the earlier writ petition (C W. J. C. No.4789/86) was the same concert and that to conceal the identity, the writ petitioners have not given its full and complete addresses in the writ application. According to the intervenor the said contention is further supported by the fact that the same Vinayak rao, through whom the present writ petition has been filed, made correspondence with the Academic Registrar of the Corporation on behalfs of M/s bhargawa offset. Varanasi vide his letter dated 9-6-93, a copy whereof is annexed as anaexure a to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No.6 for supply of printing books, which goes to show that both the concerns are managed by them same Vinayak Rao for the purpose of business and are operating two different concernas in the name and style stated above. 18. It is contended by the intervenor that the petitioner suppressed the said materials facts in the writ petition, and the writ petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 18. It is contended by the intervenor that the petitioner suppressed the said materials facts in the writ petition, and the writ petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is also contended that the state Government can give such incentives to S. S. I. units within the State of Bihar for promoting and developing such unit and further with a view to provide employments to the son of soil is in large interest of the State and thus the impugned order is not violative of Article 19 (1) (c), 301 or 304 of the Constitution of India. The said intervener has also contended that the present writ application on similar set of facts and on similar grounds on which the earlier writ application was dismissed is barred by the principles of res judicata as also of constructive res judicaia. 19. A reply of the petitioners to the said inter vention application has also been filed, in which it is stated that the faces and legal issues raised by the intervenor have already been raised by respondent No.6 and therefore, no purpose will be served by multiplying the arguments. 20. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, and in the interest of justice the intervener appear to be proper person to be heard in opposition and accordingly the application for intervenor is allowed. 21. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.6, in which it is stated that annexure 2 has been passed in public interest i. e. to encourage the industrial development of the State as also considering the facts that the industries of Bihar engaged in printing works is capable to perform the entire work orders of the Corporation. It is stated that large number of offest printing press of the State of Bihar are also for want of work order and the same have been put on auction by their financial institutions like B. S. F. C and others: In the second supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No.6 it is stated that the entire State of Bihar has been declared industrially backward State and to encourage growth of industry in bihar the State Government gives subsidy for establishment of Industries in bihar vide Government Resolution dated 20-1-1981, a photo copy of which has been annexed as annexure b to the said second supplementary affidavit. Under the said scheme the offset printing press which are also Small Scale industries and members of. the respondent No.6 were given capital subsidy for establishment of their premises. The respondent Corporation also gave written assurance to the B. S. F. C. that it would give all its print orders to their presses on the basis of which the B. S. F, C. found offset printing presses economically viable and feasible and gave financial help to establish the printing presses in the State of Bibars It is submitted that the Corporation and the State of Bihar are under legal obligation to fulfill their promises of giving work order to industries of this State in preference to others and they are bound by the principle of promissary estoppel. It is claimed that the members of respondent No.6 have already invested huge amount, time and energy in establishing the offset printing press, action on the said assurance, as such the State Govt. is perfectly justified in passing the order contained in annexure 2 to promote the interest of small scale industries like those offset printing press. 22. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned orders inter alia on the ground that the same is vioative of principle of natural justice as they were not made parties and given opportunity to plead their case before it and thus, the same are a nullity. I do not find any substance in the said contention of the petitioners. It may be true that respondent No 6 on whose application the Appellate Committee passed the impugned order (annexure-2) preferred appeal against the allotment of job work to petitioner No.1 and the Eagle Offset Press, Allahabad for quashing of the same. But from perusaof the-order of the Appellate Committee contained in annexure 7, it appears that no adverse order has been passed against the said petitioner. The order is solely based on the earlier order passed in Appeal No 7/21/86 wherein a similar direction was issued not to allot printing work to the presses outside the State in future The Appellate committee has not interfered with the allotment of job work to petitioner no.1 during 1994-95. The Appellate Committee heard the appellant as well as the respondent-Corporation and by the order impugned reiterated the order passed in the earlier appeal filed in the year 1986. Moreover. The Appellate Committee heard the appellant as well as the respondent-Corporation and by the order impugned reiterated the order passed in the earlier appeal filed in the year 1986. Moreover. I find from the said order that it has not been passed against any individual or adversely affecting the right of any individual. This is a general decision taken following the earlier decision in appeal No.2/21/86. Thus, in my opinion, in the circumstances mentioned above it cannot be said that the appellate Committee has acted in violation of the principle of natural justice. In fact, 1 am afraid whether the present writ application can be entertained on merit when the earlier similar writ petition raising similar questions filed by Bhargava Offset Printing Press against the decision of the Appellate Committee in Appeal No 2/2,/86 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court and against which appeal was also preferred to the Supreme Court, which stood dismissed, though not not merit by the Supreme Court. 23. It is true that strictly speaking the present writ application may not be barred by the principle of the res judtcala, but in my opinion, the judical discipling inmands that once a writ application challenging the validity of similar order and the same rule on similar grounds has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court it would not be proper to allow the petitioners to re-agitate the same in this Court, specially when it is not disputed that the present writ application has been filed by same Vinayak Rao. who made correspondence with the Academic Registrar of the Corporation on behalf of m/s Bhargava Offset Varanasi vide letter dated 9-6-93 which is a sister concern and both the concerns are managed by the same Vinayak Rao for the businses and operating two different concerns in the name by and stated above. Moreover, I find that the petitioners have not challenged the validity of the decision of the Appellate Committee in Appeal No.2-2/1/86, in which decision in similer terms is still operative. Thus, even assuming that if the impugned orders in the writ petition are quashed, the earlier decision of the appellate Committee will remain operative under which similar direction that the respondent-Corporation should give printing work orders to the indus-ries within the State was passed. Thus, even assuming that if the impugned orders in the writ petition are quashed, the earlier decision of the appellate Committee will remain operative under which similar direction that the respondent-Corporation should give printing work orders to the indus-ries within the State was passed. Thus, in my opinion, the learned Counsel for the respondents has rightly contended that it will amount to issuing a futile writ. 24. Under the aforementioned, circumstances, I do not feel inclined to deal with other contentions of the petitioners, specially when in regard to the earlier similar order, the matter went upto the apex Court. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed, but without costs.