Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 827 (GAU)

Gobinda Upadhyaya v. Government of Assam

2012-07-17

AMITAVA ROY, P.K.MUSAHARY

body2012
JUDGMENT Musahary, J. 1. A change over in the age old method of procurement of essential dietary and non dietary items for jail inmates has been ordered by the Government through an office memorandum bearing No.HMB.247/2006/30 dated 7.1.2012. The respondent-Inspector General of Prison, in execution thereof, cancelled the earlier notice inviting tender (NIT) for supply of dietary items to jail for the year 2011-2012 and called for fresh tenders. The relevant cancellation order was published in a local English daily "The Assam Tribune", Guwahati in its issue dated 21.1.2012. Eight petitioners are before us. They say they are educated, unemployed and earning their livelihood engaging themselves in the business of supply of various items/articles to various departments of the State as well as Central Government on contract basis. Further they say they have been awarded contracts for supply of ration under the group A,B,C,D & E to various jails for last several years. They say there was an NIT issued for district-wise supply of dietary items to jails under Grade A,B,C,D,E, & F for the year 2011-12 and they submitted their respective tenders. The said NIT has been cancelled and a fresh tender was ordered. The petitioners say they are affected by the said decision of Government and action of the respondent, Inspector General of Prisons (I. G. Prisons in short). They take on them as " arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, unfair, unconstitutional, malafide and high handed". We have heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, first of all, submits that as per provisions under Rule-8 of the Rules for Management of Jails in Assam (hereinafter referred to as "Management Rules" only), the I.G. Prisons has no authority to issue NIT and the same is well fortified by the provisions of Management Rules 742,743,744 of the Management Rules. Rule 743 casts a duty upon the superintendent of Jailor to make their purchases and the said power, under no circumstances, can be taken away by the I.G. Prisons. 3. Rule 743 casts a duty upon the superintendent of Jailor to make their purchases and the said power, under no circumstances, can be taken away by the I.G. Prisons. 3. Secondly he submits that by issuing the impugned O.M. dated 7.1.2012, the respondent State has constituted five different zones in the State and authorized the I.G. Prisons to issue NIT and initiate process centrally for procurement and supply of dietary and non-dietary articles directly to all the Jails falling in the groups as per rates fixed by the purchasing committee of each group and thereby it has departed from the existing method/procedure under Rules 742/743/744 of the Management Rules. The said rules vest the Superintendent of Jails with power to issue/initiate tender process by giving prime consideration to the cheapest market and facilities for cheap carriage. The method/ procedure followed by the respondents being a deviation from ones prescribed under the said Rule is contrary to the principle laid down in famous case of Nazir Ahmed -vs- King Emperor; reported in AIR 1936 PC 253, which is being followed till today. Following the said principle the Apex Court in Laxmi Verma -vs- State of Maharashtra and ors, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 329 held that an obligation created by statute to perform an act in a manner provided under the Act, if not complied would be rendered redundant and invalid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners a similar thing has happened in the present case inasmuch as the Respondents have taken the impugned decision and action in complete disregard to the well settled principle of law that where a power is given to do a certain things in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. If the said principle of law is applied, the impugned OM, Notification and the action taken so far by the respondents are liable to be declared illegal and unauthorized. In this regard the learned counsel persuaded the court to follow a decision of this court in Abdul Mazid -vs- State of Assam, reported in (1987) 2 GLR 476. 4. If the said principle of law is applied, the impugned OM, Notification and the action taken so far by the respondents are liable to be declared illegal and unauthorized. In this regard the learned counsel persuaded the court to follow a decision of this court in Abdul Mazid -vs- State of Assam, reported in (1987) 2 GLR 476. 4. Thirdly, it is submitted that as per scheme of the Management Rules, the procurement of dietary and non- dietary articles and management of jails are under the exclusive domain of the Superintendent of Jails and the State Government has no competence to issue directions as has been done vesting powers with the I.G.Prisons to initiate tender process. The State Government can take a policy decision as to how the jails should be managed and administered. The submissions of his is based on decision in Manohar Lal (dead) LRS -vs- Ugra Sen (Dead) by LRS and ors, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 557 . In this regard, the learned counsel particularly referred to paragraph-23 of the said judgment wherein it has been held that no higher authority in the hierarchy or appellate or revisional authority can exercise the power of the statutory authority nor can superior authority mortgage its wisdom and direct the statutory authority to act in a particular manner. If the appellate or revisional authority takes upon itself the task of the statutory authority and passes an order, it remains un-enforceable for the reason that it cannot be termed to be an order passed under the Act. Backed by the said decision, it is submitted that by authorizing the I.G. Prisons to exercise the statutory power of superintendent of jails, the Government has vested the higher authority with the power and functions of the superintendent of jails in the districts. 5. Fourthly, it is argued that there is no statutory power under the Management Rules, authorising the State to create zones and invite tenders zonewise bypassing or superseding the procedure prescribed and as such the impugned OM replacing the entire statutory procedure or method of procuring the dietary or non-dietary articles is in violation and contrary to the statutory Rules which is liable to be set aside and the action/steps taken in pursuance thereof declared non est. 6. 6. Finally, it is argued that by issuing the OM and the Notification the respondents have completely ignored the procedure prescribed by Rules 743 and 744 of the Management Rules and therefore, the action of the respondents in issuing the said OM and Notification, besides being violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India infringed the principle of natural justice, equity, good conscience and administrative fair play in action. 7. Mr. K N Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, per contra, argued that impugned OM dated 7.1.2012 has been issued by the Government strictly in consonance with the provisions under Section 5 of the Prisons Act, 1994 whereunder the State is authorised to appoint an I.G.Prisons and such I.G.Prisons is vested with general control and superintendence of all Prisons in the territorial jurisdiction of the State, so much so the impugned Notification dated 21.1.2012 has been issued by the I.G.Prisons in exercise of his power vested under the said section of the Prisons Act and the superintendent of Jails in the Districts are required to manage the Prisons subject to the orders of the I.G.Prisons as provided under Section 11 of the Prisons Act. 8. Referring to Rule 8 of the Management Rules, Mr. Choudhury submits that the power to sanction contract is vested with the I.G. Prisons and no contract other than a contract for supplies not exceeding one month's requirement, shall be made without the previous sanction of the I.G.Prisons. It is, therefore, argued that the respondents committed no illegality in adopting the method of procurement of dietary and non-dietary items through the impugned OM/ Notification. He asserts that the Government has constituted a purchase committee for each department, including the department of jail in pursuance of the provisions of Section 8 of the "Assam Preferential Stores Purchase Act,1989" (Purchase Act in Short) for procurement of Stores items under various categories for dietary and non-dietary articles through open tender process. He further asserts that under the Purchase Act there is no provision for constitution of district wise purchase committees inasmuch as the provision of Section contemplates only one Purchase Committee for each department headed by the Head of the Department as its Chairman. He further asserts that under the Purchase Act there is no provision for constitution of district wise purchase committees inasmuch as the provision of Section contemplates only one Purchase Committee for each department headed by the Head of the Department as its Chairman. According to him, the age old provision under Rules 742,743 and 744 of the Management Rules, with the enactment of the Purchase Act, have become redundant and have no more relevance or applicability so much so the old monopoly authority has lost its relevancy at the advent of new economic order in the country accepting distribution of public largesse through tender process. The endeavour of the respondents to procure the dietary and non-dietary items through tender process for a particular year/period under the supervision of duly constituted purchase committee under the Purchase Act, cannot be faulted and construed as illegal or unauthorised. 9. On the source of power of the State to issue the impugned OM, Mr. Choudhury refers to Rule 59 of the Prisons Act which empowers the State Government to make Rules consistent with the said Act and under the said provision of the Act, the Management Rules were framed. While framing the Management Rules there is no recital/mention that the said Rules were framed under the provision of Prisons Act, yet it cannot be said that the State Government has no power to frame the Management Rules particularly incorporating the Rules 742 to 744. He continues with his argument that absence of recital/mention of the source of power under a particular Act at the time of framing a particular Rule would not invalidate the Rules framed if otherwise they are found to be in consonance with the relevant Act. In support of his submissions the learned Addl. Advocate General would rely upon a decision of the Apex Court in Pournami Oil Mills -vs- State of Kerala, reported in 1986 (supp) SCC 728. Similarly the case laws in Zoii Nath Sarmah & anr. -vs- State of Assam & ors, reported in (1991) 1 GLR 407 and Abdul Mazid (supra), as referred to and relied upon by the petitioners' counsel are not at all relevant to decide the issue involved in the present case. Similarly the case laws in Zoii Nath Sarmah & anr. -vs- State of Assam & ors, reported in (1991) 1 GLR 407 and Abdul Mazid (supra), as referred to and relied upon by the petitioners' counsel are not at all relevant to decide the issue involved in the present case. The former case relates to circular issued by the I.G.Prisons putting restrictions on political leaders from meeting the prisoners detained under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Act, 1987 and the latter relates to settlement of fisheries wherein it was held that the Minister is not the competent authority to make the settlement, the statutory authority being the Secretary of the Department concerned. 10. As regards the complaint of violation of natural justice, it is submitted that the complainant, under the recent settled law, has to make out a case of real prejudice as against a mere technical infringement of natural justice. In the present case, as argued, no such case of real prejudice has been pleaded far less making out a case, there being not even a pleading/allegation of malafide against the respondents for setting aside the impugned OM and Notification as violative of the principle of natural justice. For want of allegation of malafide and real prejudice, the principle of natural justice cannot be pressed into service in the present proceeding. In this context, it is submitted that decision in Laxmi Verma (supra) as relied upon by the petitioner has no relevance inasmuch as the said case relates to submission of resignation letter by a Ward Councillor of the Municipality and acceptance thereof by the authority concerned. 11. The first question regarding authority of the I.G.Prisons to issue NIT it is to be examined in the light of the provisions under the Prisons Act. The I.G.Prisons is appointed under Section 5 of the Prisons Act. It provides that the I.G.Prisons shall exercise the general control and superintendence of all prisons subject to order of the State Government. To quote for ready reference : 5. Inspector General.- An Inspector General shall be appointed for the territories subject to each State Government, and shall exercise, subject to the orders of the State Government, the general control and superintendence of all prisons situated in the territories under such Government. 12. To quote for ready reference : 5. Inspector General.- An Inspector General shall be appointed for the territories subject to each State Government, and shall exercise, subject to the orders of the State Government, the general control and superintendence of all prisons situated in the territories under such Government. 12. Before change was brought in police administrative hierarchy, Inspector General of Police was the head of the Police Department under the police Act, 1861. In fact, provisions under Section 5 of the Prisons Act, 1894 and Section 5 of the Police Act, 1861 are similar. For ready reference and easy comparison Section 5 of the Police Act is quoted below : 5. Power of Inspector General- Exercise of powers- The Inspector General of Police shall have the full powers of a Magistrate throughout the general police district; but shall exercise those powers subject to such limitation as may from time to time be imposed by the Provincial Government. 13. Under Section 5 of the Prisons Act, phraseology, "subject to orders of the State Government" and in Section 5 of the Police Act "subject to such limitation as may from time to time be imposed by the Provincial Government" have been used. Use of different phraseologies would not make any difference as their power to control and superintendence under the respective Act are subject to approval and overall control of the Government. We have the reference of case law in Superintendent of Police, Manipur and ors -vs- R.K.Tomalsana Singh, reported in AIR 1984 SC 534 , wherein an observation was made to the effect that a bare reading of Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 shows that the power to make Rules and issue orders as may be deemed expedient relating to the organisation, classification or distribution of police force etc. is conferred on the I.G.Prisons subject to approval of the State Government. The power is conferred by the State on a statutory authority called Inspector General of Police and the power is hedged in with a condition that it can be exercised subject to approval of the State Government. 14. From the above provisions of law, there should not be any manner of doubt that the I.G.Prisons is also charged with the power and function similar to ones assigned to the I.G.Police under the respective statutes. 14. From the above provisions of law, there should not be any manner of doubt that the I.G.Prisons is also charged with the power and function similar to ones assigned to the I.G.Police under the respective statutes. The essence of Section 5 of the Prisons Act is the requirement of approval of the State Government before taking any action in the capacity of I.G.Prisons under the said Act. The pertinent question is whether the respondent, I.G. Prisons obtained the statutorily required approval /prior order of the Government to issue the NIT. This question has been raised because of the indisputable fact that the I.G.Prisons issued the impugned Notification dated 21.1.2012 cancelling the earlier NIT for supply of dietary items during 2011-12 and, for the first time, called for tender in a system different from the so long followed old system. The Notification as published in the "ASSAM TRIBUNE" dated 21.1.2012 reads as under : NOTIFICATION The NIT for supply of diary items to the jail under Gr.' A' 'B' 'C' 'D' 'E' 'F' for the year 2011-12 issued vide No. Is hereby cancelled and fresh tenders being called in a different system comprising of five groups taking contiguous district in a group being invited. All tenderers who have filed tenders and deposited earnest money may withdraw their deposits from the respective Superintendent of Jails. This is for information of all concerned. Sd/ Inspector General of Prisons Assam,Guwahati. 15. Nothing has been mentioned in the said Notification as to why there is a departure from the old system. We shall deal with this aspect of the matter at the subsequent stage. At this stage, suffice it to mention that the above Notification of NIT was issued pursuant to the impugned OM dated 7.1.2012. For better understanding and clarification it is felt necessary to quote the said OM hereunder : GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME(B) DEPARTMENT:: DISPUR OFFICE MEMORANDUM No. HMB.247/2006/30 Dated Dispur, the 7th Jan/2012 It has been observed that Procurement of essential Dietary and non Dietary items under Group A,B,C,D,E & F of Jail Manual under the Directorate of Inspector General of Prisons, through the process of initiating Tender locally by the Superintendent of Jails is prone to difficulties in arriving at common rates and quantity of items due to small size of procurement. 2. 2. The Purchase Board constituted under section 8 of 'The APSP Act, 1989' of the Inspector General of Prisons Office usually face difficulties in arriving at common rate and quality of items. 3. Hence, it has been decided to have 5(five) different zones in the State as indicated below to get the rates and quality of items in an uniform manner in all the Districts falling in a particular group, considering their Geographical contiguity. Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 Group-4 Group-5 Central Jail, Dibrugarh Central Jail, Nagaon Central Jail, Guwahati Central Jail, Tezpur Central Jail, Silchar Central Jail, Jorhat Central Jail, Diphu Central Jail, Nalbari Central Jail, Dhemaji Central Jail, Hailakandi District Jail, Sadiya Spl.Jail, Nagaon District Jail, Barpeta District Jail, Mangaldoi District Jail, Karimganj District Jail, Tinsukia District Jail, Morigaon District Jail, Goalpara District Jail, Udalguir Sub-Jail. Haflon District Jail, Sibsagar District Jail, Hamren District Jail, Abhayapuri District Jail, Biswanath Chariali District Jail, Sonari District Jail, Golaghat District Jail, Kokrajhar District Jail, North Lakhimpur District Jail, Majuli District Jail, Dhubri Open Air Jail 4. Tender for procurement of Dietary and nonDietary articles shall be initiated Centrally Group wise and supply shall be made to all the jails falling in the groups directly as per rates fixed by the Purchase Committee for each groups. This will remove the variation of rates in the Districts and quick & speedy delivery of the Dietary and non Dietary items for jails would be ensured. 5. Rates of the items so fixed by the Purchase Committee of Directorate of Inspector General of Prisons shall be valid for the current financial year and the financial year 2012-2013. Yours faithfully, Sd/ Illegible Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department. 16. On the face of provisions under Section 5 of the Prisons Act and the impugned OM dated 7.1.2012, the propriety of the I.G.Prisons, and for that matter legality of his action in issuing the impugned NIT cannot be questioned. We are clear in our mind that the Respondents' action in issuing the OM and NIT could be questioned if it could be shown or found that the Government was not authorised under the law to vest or transfer the power and functions of inviting NIT for procurement of essential dietary and non-dietary articles to the I.G.Prisons. We are clear in our mind that the Respondents' action in issuing the OM and NIT could be questioned if it could be shown or found that the Government was not authorised under the law to vest or transfer the power and functions of inviting NIT for procurement of essential dietary and non-dietary articles to the I.G.Prisons. Now we would deal with the power of the Respondents-State in issuing the impugned OM dated 7.1.2012 overhauling the entire method of procuring the dietary and non-dietary articles through tender process by the I.G.Prisons. Necessary power to make rules on various subjects, including food, bedding and clothing of both criminal and civil prisons have been vested with the State Government under Section 59 of the Prisons Act. By virtue of the said provisions the Respondents-State Government framed a set of Rules called Assam Jail Rules. Part-III of the said Rules provides" Rules for superintendence and management of jails in State of Assam". Chapter-XXXIX provides for elaborate method of procuring ration. It comprises Rule 742 to 750. Rules 742,743 and 744 are relevant for the issue at hand. Under Rules 742 the Superintendent and Jailor have been given the responsibility for making arrangement for timely storing of sufficient quantity of food grains at the cheapest rate to meet the revenue until the following year's crop could safely be used. The method of purchase has been prescribed elaborately under Rule 743. A close examination of these Rules would be necessary and it is, therefore, reproduced hereunder : 743. Method of purchase.-It is duty of the Superintendent and the Jailer to make their purchase in the cheapest market available and at the cheapest season of the year. They must not be content with purchasing in the local bazaar nor in small quantities at retail prices. All articles which are required in large quantities, such as paddy, dal and other grains, mustard seed, kerosene oil, etc., should be obtained by entering into contracts with wholesale dealers, landholders and others and when doing this, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-divisional Officer of the district or of neighbouring districts, should be freely consulted both as to the cheapest market and facilities for cheap carriage. Superintendents of neighbouring jails who may be in a position to help may also be consulted. Superintendents of neighbouring jails who may be in a position to help may also be consulted. It is only in the event of failure to enter into such contracts, which may happen in the case of the smaller jails, unfavourably situated, that supplies may be obtained from petty traders. When applying for sanction to this course, Superintendents shall satisfy the Inspector-General of Prisons that they have done their best to make suitable contracts with wholesale dealers. The Jailer may be deputed to visit the large marts, ascertain the prices charged by wholesale dealers, and make arrangements for weighment and transport; and trustworthy jail officers may be sent to superintend the weighment and despatch of the grain to the jail. The travelling allowances of these officers will be passed according to rule. 17. In the counter affidavit, it is pleaded that the Government is to follow the Purchase Act and in compliance thereof, a State Level Purchase Committee has been constituted. Much has been stated earlier about the said committee and its power and function. Under the scheme of the Purchase Act there is no provision for constitution of district committees and the superintendent of jails in the Districts has no more role to play in regard to matters covered under Rules 742,743 and 744 of the Management Rules. The State in its affidavit-in-opposition filed through Respondent no.2, specifically pleaded that in the present scheme/arrangement, there is no scope for going by age old provisions of Rules 742 to 744 of the Management Rules. 18. The Purchase Act was enacted for encouraging growth of Industries in the State of Assam specially small scale and cottage Industries and for taking measures ancillary thereto. The objective sought to be achieved could be traced from its preamble. It speaks about encouraging growth of industries in the State of Assam specially small scale and cottage Industries by patronising their products on preferential basis and to rationalise the procedure for purchase of stores required by the State Government Institutions, Government companies and State Government undertakings. This Act provides for constitution of a State Board known as " The Assam State Stores Purchase Board" under Section 3. Apart from it, Section 8 provides for constitution of a Purchase Committee for each Government Department of the State with head of the department as its Chairman. This Act provides for constitution of a State Board known as " The Assam State Stores Purchase Board" under Section 3. Apart from it, Section 8 provides for constitution of a Purchase Committee for each Government Department of the State with head of the department as its Chairman. Under Section 10 of the Purchase Act, the decision of the Purchase Committee should be recorded in a minute to be signed by all members and decision of the Purchasing Committee shall be binding on the Department. The Government, by enacting the Purchase Act sought to implement its public policy reflected in the preamble. The petitioners have not contended that no public policy is involved in enacting the Purchase Act. The Respondents had made it clear to this court that the impugned O.M. was issued by the Government in consonance with the Purchase Act to serve public purpose or policy for greater number of people. 19. We have noticed that the State Respondents enacted the Purchase Act for achieving certain objectives for the greater interest of the people and thereby the respondent-authorities in a bid to alter the Government policy in respect of procuring the dietary and non-dietary articles for jail inmates, has issued the impugned Notification. It is the established law all through that normally the courts do not interfere with policy decision of the Government unless they are arbitrary or offend any of the provisions of the constitution. We have found no strong ground for raising objection to the aforesaid alteration of the policy decision as it is not offending any provision of law and the constitution of India. Adoption of policy to effectively procure food grains etc through tender system by the higher authority like I.G.Prisons cannot be termed as arbitrary unless it is shown that it is contrary to the public good and interest. Adoption or alteration of policy abandoning the old one, is within the domain of the executive and the court has to be careful in interfering with such policy decision in exercising the power of judicial review. We have the occasion to go through the decision of the Apex Court in APM Terminals BV-vs- Union of India and another, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 756 wherein the law on the point of judicial review in respect of public policy has been discussed referring to various cases decided earlier and came to above conclusion. We have the occasion to go through the decision of the Apex Court in APM Terminals BV-vs- Union of India and another, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 756 wherein the law on the point of judicial review in respect of public policy has been discussed referring to various cases decided earlier and came to above conclusion. Referring to earlier decision in Shimnit Utsch India (P)Ltd. -vs- W.B.Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 303 , it was also held that Government could change its policy with changing circumstances and only on grounds of change a policy does not stand vitiated for, it is the discretion of the Government to adopt different policy, alter or change its policy to make it more effective and the only qualifying policy is that such change in policy must be free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias and malice and must be in conformity with the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness. As for reasonableness, the Respondents contended in their counter affidavit as under : 4. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the deponent denies the same and states that the alleged notification is issued strictly in consonance with Rules under Assam Jail Manual and Assam Preferential Store Purchased Act, 1989. Be it submitted that the stores items under various categories for dietary and non-dietary articles are procured through open tender process and there is a purchase committee constituted as per provision of section 8 of the Assam Preferential Stores Purchase Act, 1989. In the process the intending bidders submit their respective competitive bids along with samples and the Purchase Committee upon careful consideration about the quality of the articles as well as on consideration of the process recommends for selection of the successful bidder. There is no district wise Purchase Committee. The petitioners have cited Rule 742 to 744, it is clear that under these rules the entire purchasing power has been vested with the Superintendent and Jailor of the respective jails subject to approval of the Inspector general of Prisons. It is further stated that under chapter II Rule 8 of the Assam Jail Manual the Inspector general of Prisons enjoys the power to sanction contract and as such there is no violation in the process of settle the annual contract. It is further stated that under chapter II Rule 8 of the Assam Jail Manual the Inspector general of Prisons enjoys the power to sanction contract and as such there is no violation in the process of settle the annual contract. In the arrangement under Rule 742 the required quantity of food stuff was to be stored by purchasing at the cheapest rate in each season and to be stored and processed for consumption in due time. Under rule 743 it was allowed to fix rate in surveying market including consultation with Deputy Commissioners and S.D.O.s of the neighbouring district. This monopoly of authority is no longer relevant. In the modern age it is procured through tender process for a particular year/period where final decision for selection of successful bidder is vested with the Purchase Committee, duly constituted by the Govt. under the aforesaid stated section of the Assam Preferential Purchase Act, 1989.................................... 20. The decision of the Government in doing way with the old system and introducing a new system of procurement of food items etc. in consonance with the Purchase Act is a new policy decision of the Government. The wisdom of the executive in changing the policy cannot be gone into. So also the legality or correctness of the said policy decision cannot be examined by the court in judicial review unless a case of violation/contravention of relevant rules and provisions of the constitution is made out. The petitioners largely relied upon the case of Manohar Lal (supra) which, in our considered view, is not applicable to the present case inasmuch as in the said case adoption of public policy/decision was not involved. In the said appeal the main question raised was as to whether the State Government as a revisional authority under the statute, could take upon itself the task of a lower statutory authority. Apparently in the present case also similar question has been raised, but the higher authority (I.G.Prisons) has been allowed to exercise the power and functions of the lower authority i.e. Superintendent of Jails in the tender process for procuring the dietary and non dietary items. The present case is distinguishable as the said power has been vested with the I.G.Prisons by virtue of the policy decision taken in consonance with the Purchase Act. 21. The present case is distinguishable as the said power has been vested with the I.G.Prisons by virtue of the policy decision taken in consonance with the Purchase Act. 21. We find the case law in Laxmi Verma (supra) absolutely inapplicable as the said case relates to mode of tendering resignation of a Municipal Councillor and the acceptance thereof. We fail to appreciate how the principle laid down in the case of Nazir Ahmed (supra) could be applied to the instant case. So much so, we fail to understand how the case of Joii Nath Sarma (supra) and Abdul Mazid (supra) are of some avail in absence of involvement of public policy. In view of above, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioners, in the instant case, have no solid case convincing a writ court to exercise the power of judicial review. 22. As regards the violation of principle of natural justice, as complained by the petitioners, no case has been made out that there was/is a real prejudice caused to the petitioners. The law of availing benefit under the principle of natural justice has undergone considerable changes. The classic theory in earlier days in regard to principle of natural justice cannot be applied to each and every case. Of late, law has been settled that the complaint of violation of principle of natural justice could be taken seriously and remedial relief could be granted by interfering with the order passed against the said principle, if and only if, the complaint can make out a case of real prejudice and not merely a technical prejudice. Without referring to the host of decisions in this regard, we would like to refer only to the case of Natwar Singh -vs- Director of Enforcement and another reported in (2010)13 SCC 255 . It is apt and appropriate to quote paragraph 26 of the said judgment. 26. Even in the application of the doctrine of fair play there must be real flexibility. There must also have (sic been caused)some real prejudice to the complainant: there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with and so forth. There must also have (sic been caused)some real prejudice to the complainant: there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with and so forth. Can the courts supplement the statutory procedures with requirements over and above those specified? In order to ensure a fair hearing, courts can insist and require additional steps as long as such steps would not frustrate the apparent purpose of the legislation. 23. We have taken into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents based on the decision in Pournami Oil Mills (supra). It has some relevance to the present case, although facts are not similar. The said decision can be used for a limited purpose to uphold an order made by the authority without indicating the provision under which it was made, yet such order could be deemed to have been made under the enabling provisions. It has been made more than clear in the pleadings of the respondents that although no provision of law has been cited in issuing the impugned OM and Notification, they were issued in pursuance of change/new public policy emphasised under the Purchase Act in the changing modern economic and administrative order. We have noted that it is but quite natural to change the British made prison law with many colonial hangovers which is purely rigid and incapable of meeting the changed circumstances. As a free country, the process/method of procuring dietary and non dietary articles as provided under Rules 742,743 and 744 under the Management Rules have become obsolete necessitating the State to adopt a new policy. This is the wisdom of the Government. The court has no business to review it like an appellate authority and accordingly we decline to interfere with the policy decision and the follow up action of the Government. This application is found and proved to be without any merit and liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly dismissed. The interim order stands vacated and the Respondent-Authorities are allowed to proceed with the process in question in accordance with existing policy, law and procedure.