JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — The writ petitioner herein has filed the present writ application seeking a direction to quash the entire tender process vide Tender Call Notice No./3587/SW Dated 29.3.2007 under Annexure-1 issued by the Sub-Collector, Bhubanes¬war and has prayed to direct the opposite parties to publish the tender call notice once again by giving adequate wide publicity in newspapers and to direct the opposite parties to permit all the eligible persons to participate in the tender process and also to quash the stipulation of residence in the same Block as contained in condition No. 2 under Annexure-1 as according to the petitioner the same is in violation of Article 19 of the Consti¬tution of India. 2. Ms. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner essential¬ly raised the following two contentions: (a) That the impugned tender call notice dated 29.3.2007 was never given wide publicity nor made available to the general public nor published in any newspaper thereby depriving the petitioner (who is also a owner of a truck) from participating in the said tender. (b) That the condition No.2 in the impugned tender call notice requiring a Tenderer to be a permanent resident of the concerned Block area while being violative the Article 19 of the Constitu¬tion of India, was also not in consonance with the conditions stipulated by the State Government and has been imposed without any authority of law. 3. Ms. Rath, in support of her contentions noted hereina¬bove submitted that the impugned tender call notice dated 29.3.2007 was merely prepared and shown in the official records to have been published. She further submitted that the petitioner on further enquiry came to learn that no publication has been made in any newspaper and the said notice was merely forwarded to certain officers with a request to them for wide publicity. Thereafter though the copies of the tender call notice were forwarded late to various authorities for wide publication, but no advertisement was made in the newspaper. It is further submit¬ted that the District Information and Public Relation Officer, Khurda (in short ‘DIPRO’) had received the tender call notice only on 2nd April, 2007, whereas the date of tender was fixed from 2.4.2007 to 6.4.2007, as there has been no effective pub¬licity at all of the tender call notice. 4. So far as the second contention is concerned Ms. 4. So far as the second contention is concerned Ms. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in imposing a condition in the tender, limiting the same to the residents of the concerned Block, is clearly violating Article 19 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the stipula¬tion of such a condition is not in consonance with the Government guidelines on the subject, as well as, has been imposed without any authority of law. 5. Mr. P.Panda, learned Additional Standing Counsel on behalf of the State submitted that the tender call notice was forwarded to the Block Development Officer, Bhubaneswar, Balian¬ta, Balipatna, Jatni and Child Development Project Officer, Bhubaneswar (Urban), Bhubaneswar (Rural) Balianta, Balipatna and the D.I.P.R.O., Khurda and A.D.I.P.R.O., Bhubaneswar for informa¬tion and for wide publicity. He further submitted that a copy of the said tender call notice was also placed in the Notice Board of the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar for information of the general public. In this manner steps have been taken for wide publicity, though not published in newspaper. He further submitted that publication in newspaper was neither a mandatory nor compulsory requirement. In this regard Mr. Panda stated that in settling tenders for transportation of foodstuff for Supplementary Nutri¬tion Programme and the entire process of tender was in terms and conditions of the tender call notice and 18 numbers of Tenders were submitted for the five ICDS Projects coming under the four Blocks of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. He submitted that this would indicate that there has been wide publicity of the tender and that there was no bar on the part of the petitioner from submitting his tender and the allegation of lack of wide publicity has been raised merely to frustrate the entire tender process. 6. So far as second contention is concerned, Mr. Panda, submitted that the terms and conditions for appointment of trans¬porting agents were duly approved by the Collector, Khurda and as per the said terms and condition the tender call notice was issued by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar for the year 2007-08 and therefore no illegality has been committed by the authorities, copy of the said letter is annexed as Anexure-B/2 to the counter affidavit. 7. 7. So far as the first contention is concerned it is seen that tender call notice was issued by the Sub-Collector on 29.3.2007 on the same day copies of the said notice were forward¬ed to the Block Development Officers and Child Development Project Officers of various places : Bhubaneswar, Balianta, Bali¬patna and Jatni for information and wide circulation. In course of hearing learned counsel for the State was asked to obtain instruction from the State authorities as to the manner in which the tender notice was given wide publicity. Mr. Panda submitted that the notice was collected by the representatives of the Block Development Officers but he further submitted that the records do not contain any evidence of the nature of publicity given to the said notice by the Block Development Officers. He further submit¬ted that the D.I.P.R.O. and A.D.I.P.R.O., Khurda received the notice only on 2.4.2007. In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the authority was required to give wide public¬ity for three days “prior to the date of inviting the tender which was fixed from 2.4.2007 to 6.4.2007” which obviously could not be done. 8. Ms. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner in support her contention that the tender call notice should be published in newspaper placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others, AIR 1993 SC 935 in order to establish the principle that when sale of property is being made by the State, every endeavour should be made to give wide publicity. Further she placed reliance on the decision of Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily a ‘theka’ should be granted after advertising it in well known newspapers having wide circulation. 9. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the State on the other hand while accepting the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, submitted that each case depends on its own facts and in the present case the tender itself involved granting of trans¬portation of foodstuff from Block Godown to the various schools under which ICDS Projects were being carried out and submitted the total value of each tender for each Block was approximately Rs. 20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and therefore for such small value tenders fixed price tender much interest would not be shown by the persons outside the Blocks. Mr. Panda, learned Additional Standing Counsel placed reli¬ance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 801 in which limited tenders were invited through letters issued to some companies having experi¬ence in construction of ground handling facilities for the New Airport wherein award of the contract was ultimately affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel submitted that in the said case there had been no newspaper advertisement and yet such action had been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The question that arises for our consideration is, as to whether a newspaper advertisement alone would satisfy the re¬quirement of law or could other forms of publicity be adopted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this regard it would be most relevant to take note of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State Finan¬cial Corporation and another v. M/s. Jagadamba Oil Mills and another, AIR 2002 SC 834 in which the Supreme Court came to hold that : “Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a deci¬sion is not proper. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of apply¬ing precedents have become locus classicus: “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all deci¬sive.” xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of ob¬structions which could impede it.” The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petition¬er on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others, AIR 1993 SC 935 and Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 have to be considered in the facts of the each case. 11. We are in agreement with the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the State that in every case newspaper adver¬tisement may not be justified by economic consideration. There may be circumstances where limited tenders may be issued and there may be circumstances where it requires publication in newspaper having wide circulation. But in the present case we are of the view that the principle involved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly stipulates there must be wide publicity for the purpose of public participation but obviously the manner of publication has to be consistent with the objectives sought to be achieved. If the tender value was between Rs.20,000/ - to Rs.30,000/- any direction to the State to give publicity of the said tender through a newspaper advertisement may cost much more than total tender value and may amount to an unnecessary expendi¬ture to the public exchequer. The ICDS projects provide for foodstuff to the children of the Anganwadi Centre / Schools where the scheme is being carried out. In order to make the public aware of the said tender in order to ensure that the cheapest rates were available to the State, the best assurance of the cheapest rate is by ensuring maximum participation by the tender¬ers. Therefore, from an analysis of the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that no rule can be laid down requiring that every tender of the State needs to be published through an advertisement in a news¬paper having wide circulation. Such a requirement for a newspaper advertisement would depend on the facts of each case as well as rules framed, if any, governing the same. We are of the view that in the present case, considering the value of the tender and the nature of work sought to be assigned through the tender, no newspaper advertisement was necessary. 12. Such a requirement for a newspaper advertisement would depend on the facts of each case as well as rules framed, if any, governing the same. We are of the view that in the present case, considering the value of the tender and the nature of work sought to be assigned through the tender, no newspaper advertisement was necessary. 12. But in the present case, it is an admitted fact the tender notices have merely been sent to the subordinate authori¬ties for the purpose of giving wide publicity but in fact no actual publicity has been given by them at their level. In view of the facts of the case we having held that there has been no effective publicity at all in the matter, the State is under a legal obligation to give the same wide publicity. Such publicity can be effectively achieved if such tender notices are published on the web site of the respective department of the State apart from issuing notice to the various Government authorities as well as Panchayat offices located in the area. Such notice must not only be issued adequately in advance but the authorities con¬cerned must ensure that subordinate authorities do in fact pub¬lish the notice in terms of their directions. 13. In so far as the second contention in the writ application is concerned condition No.2 of the tender call notice, in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2, by Smt. Manjulata Swain, (working as Nizarat Officer in the office of Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar) has stated that opposite party No.2 has followed the terms and conditions and on the basis of the instruction contained in the letter No. 396/SW dtd.23.3.2007 of the District Social Welfare Officer, Khurda which has been appended as Annexure-B/2 to the counter affidavit. On perusal of the said letter it is seen that District Social Welfare Officer, Khurda had informed the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar that the Collector, Khurda has been pleased to order for engagement of transporting agents through tender process for the year 2007-08. In the said letter there are two references to Government order, i.e., earlier G.O. No. 2920/WCD dtd. 24.4.2000 and G.O.No.9133 dtd. 29.3.2006. The G.O.No.2920/WCD dtd. 24.4.2000 has been annexed as Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit. In the said letter there are two references to Government order, i.e., earlier G.O. No. 2920/WCD dtd. 24.4.2000 and G.O.No.9133 dtd. 29.3.2006. The G.O.No.2920/WCD dtd. 24.4.2000 has been annexed as Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit. The said Government letter does not contain any stipulation as contained in condition No.2 of the terms and conditions of the tender requiring that the Tenderers are to be residents of the concerned Block. The Government in¬struction communicated vide G.O.No.9133 dtd. 29.3.2006 has not been filed along with the counter affidavit but Mr.Panda, learned counsel for the opposite parties, produced the records in course of hearing which contained a copy of the same and we find that the said communication is of no relevance to determine the con¬tentions raised herein. The said Government Order merely stipu¬lates that tenderers must possess valid “agent licences”, under Orissa Motor Vehicles (Licensing of Agents) Rules, 1990 and is therefore of no relevance for determining the present controver¬sy. 14. In course of hearing Mr. Panda also submitted that the terms and conditions were not fixed by the Sub-Collector but the same was fixed by the Collector vide an enclosure to Annexure- B/2. Since the said enclosure was not a part of the record, he drew our attention to the official records produced by him in course of hearing. On perusal same we find that the said terms and conditions claimed to be a part of Annexure-B/2 does not carry any signature of the Collector and instead there seems to be an endorsement on the bottom of that page which was scored off and therefore no reliance can be placed on the same. Even apart from this learned Additional Standing Counsel was also asked to explain the source of authority under which the Collector had power to include a condition in the tender call notice, Mr. Panda fairly submitted that no such authority in fact exists. Mr. Panda instead has contended that imposition of such a condition was in the interest of local people of the Block and since a consolidat¬ed amount was payable for transportation of food articles within the Block irrespective of distance, it would be uneconomic for any outsider to be invited to participate in the said tender. 15. Mr. Panda instead has contended that imposition of such a condition was in the interest of local people of the Block and since a consolidat¬ed amount was payable for transportation of food articles within the Block irrespective of distance, it would be uneconomic for any outsider to be invited to participate in the said tender. 15. In our consideration of the rival contentions as noted herein above, while refraining from expressing our opinion on the bona fide or the objectives behind the imposition of such a condition, we are clearly of the view that, in absence of any stipulation in Government Order No. 2920/WCD dt. 24.4.2000 stipu¬lating condition No.2 and further, in absence of any authority in law being vested on the Collector/Sub-Collector for adding or to impose any additional term and condition in the tender call notice, we are left with no other option other than to hold that condition No.2 of the terms and conditions of Annexure-l to the writ application has been imposed without any lawful authority. 16. Mr. Panda, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagaban Dass v. Kamal Abrol, JT 2005 (5) SC 339 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court determined the term “residence” as required in terms and conditions for appoint¬ment of LPG dealership and clearly distinguished between the concept of de facto and de jure residence. Considering the fact of said case Hon’ble Apex Court came to hold that the respondent is a permanent resident of Mandi district and that she should be considered as a resident of Kangra district since her husband had some ancestral property in the said district and occasionally resides there for a few days. This contention of the respondent was repelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by holding that the agency required a full time working dealer and same would be possible if person actually resides in Kangra district and not working through servant engaged for the said purpose and since the applicant was not a de facto resident of Kangra district her application did not satisfy the necessary mandatory criteria provided in the notice. In our considered opinion the aforesaid judgment relied upon by Mr. Panda, is not applicable either to the facts or the issues raised in the present case and does not come to any assistance in determining the present controversy. In our considered opinion the aforesaid judgment relied upon by Mr. Panda, is not applicable either to the facts or the issues raised in the present case and does not come to any assistance in determining the present controversy. In the case referred to hereinabove, the question as to whether a stipulation of “residence” was violative of the constitutional mandate of Article 19 did not arise for consideration. Since the State Government have not stipulated in that Government order, that a tenderer must be a resident of concerned Block, as an eligibility criteria and since the Collector did not possess any authority in law to amend and or incorporate any such stipula¬tion, we are of the view that condition No.2 requiring a bidder to be a resident of the concerned Block, as contained in the tender notice is wholly without any authority of law. 17. In consideration of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the urgency and necessity for transporting of Supplementary Nutrition Programme/Mid Day Meal programme foodstuff from the ICDS Project/Block Godown to their respective Anganwadi Centres/Schools (Feeding Centres) for the ICDS Project/Blocks under Bhubaneswar Sub-division, we direct as follows: (a) The tender call notice No. 3587/SW dt. 29.3.2007 under Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. (b) The condition No.2, i.e., the tenderer should be permanent resident of concerned Block areas, is also quashed as being imposed without authority of law. (c) Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to issue a fresh tender for the self same purpose by deleting condition No.2 and also by giving wide publicity of the same by advertisement and in the official web site of the Orissa State Government and through the Governmental authorities. (d) The entire exercise directed shall be completed within a period of one month from today and since the requirement of the transporting agents is necessary for delivery of food materials under SNP/MDM Feeding Programme for the year 2007-08 is a con¬tinuous requirement, till the process is completed, opposite parties 1and 2 are directed to carry on the delivery of food materials through any temporary arrangement, but the same shall be valid for a period of one month i.e. within which period the fresh tender process as directed should be completed. The writ application is allowed in terms of the directions noted hereinabove. Application allowed.