ORDER Heard Mr. S.B. Panda, Learned counsel for the petition¬er and learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties. 2. The petitioners, a Cooperative Society, has prayed for quashing the Notice under Annexure-1 and Clause-3 of item No.4 of Tender Notice No.2 under Annexure-3 series. The petitioner has banked upon the Resolution issued by the State Government in Department of Co-operation, which has been published in the Orissa Gazette dated 4th. August, 1995, as per Annexure-4 and has submitted that item No. 4 (3) of Annexure-3 runs contrary to the aforesaid Government Resolution. The relevant portion of the Resolution is extracted herein below : “ 3. (d) That while purchasing their respective required materials as aforesaid, the concerned departments of the Govt. and all other bodies under the Govt. Departments and the Govt. Undertakings, on the basis of the aforesaid directives of the Central Govt., vis-a-vis under the continuing provisions of the State for last may years, shall extend benefits such as 5 % rate preference, exemption from Earnest Money and Security deposits, etc. to the State Consumers Cooperative Federation and other Central and Primary wholesale Cooperative Stores.” In the Resolution it has been stated that preference shall be given to the various Cooperative Societies in the matter of supply of articles to the various Government Departments. In item No. 4 (3) of Annexure-3, it has been indicated that “in accepting the tenders, preference will be given to manufacturers.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this being in contravention of the Resolution under Annexure-4 should be quashed. Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioner sub¬mitted that in Tender Notice No.2, tenders were invited from “bona fide manufacturers/authorised dealers/ suppliers for supply of stationery articles and Press materials”. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by excluding the “Cooperative Societies”, illegality has been committed. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3, reliance has been placed upon the Industrial Policy Resolution of the year 1996 (in short “I.P.R., 1996”). In paragraphs-20.2 and 20.4. of I.P.R., 1996, it has been indicated that preference shall be given to the local small scale industrial units. It is further stated in the counter that there appears to be some confu¬sion between the two Resolutions and clarification has been sought for from the Government. 4. In paragraphs-20.2 and 20.4. of I.P.R., 1996, it has been indicated that preference shall be given to the local small scale industrial units. It is further stated in the counter that there appears to be some confu¬sion between the two Resolutions and clarification has been sought for from the Government. 4. So far as notice under Annexure-1 is concerned, by invit¬ing tenders from manufacturers/authorised dealers/suppliers, it cannot be said that the Cooperative Societies have been excluded. A Cooperative Society may be a manufacturer, supplier or an authorised dealer and as such, there is no prohibition for a Cooperative Society from submitting the tender pursuant to the Tender Notice under Annexure-1. As a matter of fact, it appears that the present petitioner has also submitted its offer in accordance with the aforesaid notice. 5. So far as contention relating to giving preference to the Cooperative Society is concerned, the submission of the petition¬er stands on a firm footing. There is no doubt that under Annex¬ure-4, a Resolution of the Government has been published indicat¬ing the policy of the Government to give preference to Coopera¬tive Societies. At the same time, it cannot be denied that under the relevant Industrial Policy Resolution some incentives are meant to be given to small scale industries located inside the State. Paragraph-20.2 of the I.P.R. 1996 is quoted hereunder : “ 20.2 Purchase from 'exclusive list', : A list of store items reserved for exclusive purchase from industries located in the State may be prepared from time to time keeping in view the production capacity of the local industries and requirements of State Government Departments and agencies under the control of the State Government. The latter will have to purchase their requirements of these items from local industries with ISO/ISI/EPM certification for the items only by inviting competitive quotations from such industries. Efforts will be made to distribute the purchase order equitably among the participating industries prepared to accept the lowest negotiated rate keeping in the view their capacity. Local small scale industrial units will enjoy a price preference of 5% and Khadi and village industrial units including handloom and handicrafts over local medium/large industries. Efforts will be made to distribute the purchase order equitably among the participating industries prepared to accept the lowest negotiated rate keeping in the view their capacity. Local small scale industrial units will enjoy a price preference of 5% and Khadi and village industrial units including handloom and handicrafts over local medium/large industries. Any local small scale industrial unit having ISO-9000 and ISI certification for its products will get an additional price preference of 3 per cent and 2 per cent respectively.” From the aforesaid resolution, it is apparent that small scale industrial units located inside the State are entitled to price preference as in paragraph-20.2 However, it is apparent that the I.P.R. 1996 does not purport to supersede the Resolution under Annexure-4 and both the Resolutions are to be harmoniously con¬strued. 6. In view of the aforesaid position and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as indicated earlier, I dispose of the writ application with a direction to opposite parties that local small scale industrial units shall be entitled to price preference as quoted in paragraph-20.2 of I.P.R. 1996. Since IPR 1996 does not purport to override the Resolution under Annexure-4, both the Resolutions should be given effect to while considering the tenders. It is further directed that the opposite parties shall consider the offers given by the petitioner as well as others in respect of Schedule-II and Schedule-III as classi¬fied in Annexure-1 and shall finalise the matter keeping in view the policy decision incorporated in Annexure-4 as well as in the I.P.R., 1996. 7. During the pedency of the writ application, another advertisement was issued as per Annexure-5 to the writ applica¬tion. An affidavit has been filed today indicating that the said advertisement under Annexure-5 has been subsequently cancelled as per Annexure-B series which has been published on 15.2.2001 in “The Samaj” and “The Prajatantra” the daily Oriya newspapers. In other words, the advertisement under Annexure-5 sought to be challenged in Misc. Case No. 12281/2000 appears to have been superseded. 8. Subject to the aforesaid directions and observation, the writ application is disposed of. Copy of this order shall be handed over to the learned Addi¬tional Government Advocate. Petition disposed of.