JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 11817 of 2016 are the proprietors of small binding units covered under the definition of “micro industries” under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short “MSMED Act”), whereas the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12427 of 2016 are the cover printers and text printers registered under the District Industries Centers and carry on their business, as small scale industries defined under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1980 and subsequent Resolutions passed by the State Authority, by availing the benefits thereof. In the present writ applications, the petitioners seek to assail the tender call notice no.3150 dated 09.06.2016 issued by the Director, Textbook Production and Marketing, Bhubaneswar for “Printing and Binding of Nationalized Textbooks for the academic session 2017-18”. 2. In these two writ petitions, the selfsame tender call notice, referred to above, being the subject-matter of challenge and grounds of challenge being substantively common, both of them have been tagged together and taken up for hearing. However, for just and proper adjudication, the facts of W.P.(C) No. 11817 of 2016 have been referred to. 3. In the State of Odisha, there are as many as 5000 printing presses and binding units, which are set up under the approval of respective District Industries Centres (for short “DICs”) under the Industrial Policy framed by the Industries Department, Government of Odisha. Thereby, they are all coming under “small scale industries” as per Industrial Policy Resolution, 1980 (for short “IPR, 1980”) and its amendment made from time to time by the Government of Odisha. The respective proprietors, as per the schemes, have modernized their printing and binding units by installing modern equipments by incurring huge loans from different banks as well as non-banking organizations. Most of them are technicians, skilled and unskilled labourers, who are maintaining their livelihood from the printing and binding work of nationalized text book. A large number of skilled workers/labourers are being engaged in such type of micro industries so as to earn their livelihood. In fact, the purpose of the MSMED Act is to aid such industries. Under IPR, 1980 several incentives were given to small scale industries with an avowed objective that such units would get marketing support and also price preference for their survival. The State Government has been issuing such policies to ensure that local products are co-effective and meet overall quantity requirement for competitiveness. Under IPR, 1980 several incentives were given to small scale industries with an avowed objective that such units would get marketing support and also price preference for their survival. The State Government has been issuing such policies to ensure that local products are co-effective and meet overall quantity requirement for competitiveness. As per IPR, 1989, the products manufactured by the local small scale industries and units are required to be purchased by the Government Department on rate contract basis and efforts will be made to bring down cost and to achieve over all competitiveness of the products of local industries, so that they will be eligible for the facility of preferential purchase by State Government. Under IPR 2007, which came into force w.e.f 02.03.2007, laying down marketing support to MSMEs (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises) in Government procurement, para 11 provides for rehabilitation and revival of sick units, for which the intention behind the 2007 IPR is clear to the extent that it can never cause sickness to a running unit. Similarly, IPR 2015 has been recently published, wherein under Clause-10 it has been provided to make rules extending marketing support to small scale industries to be brought in alignment with the MSMED Act, 2006 and Orissa MSME Development Policy, 2009. The State Government in adherence to the aforesaid policy continued to procure the nationalized text books from the small scale industrial (SSI) units of the State at least for not less than 18 years facilitating to allow near about 70,000 workers to maintain their livelihood. But, all of a sudden, opposite party no.1, deviating from the general procurement policy of the Government, vide Resolution dated 25.08.2009, decided to procure nationalized text books through national tender for the first time for the academic session 2010-11 and, accordingly, the national tender was floated on 11.02.2010. The aforesaid tender notice was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 2862 of 2010, inter alia on the ground that the Resolution was contrary to the statutory provision and the benefit so conferred by the statutory provision cannot be taken away by an executive decision. The aforesaid tender notice was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 2862 of 2010, inter alia on the ground that the Resolution was contrary to the statutory provision and the benefit so conferred by the statutory provision cannot be taken away by an executive decision. A Division Bench of this Court upon hearing, vide its judgment dated 19.05.2010 in The Orissa Printers and Binders Mahasangha v. State of Orissa and Ors., AIR 2010 ORI 154 : 2010 (2) OLR 265 : 2010 (I) ILR CUT 769) declared the said Resolution dated 25.08.2009 was in conflict with the Industrial Policy Resolution and, accordingly, while quashing the same also quashed the tender call notice dated 11.02.2010 for procurement of nationalized text books through national competitive bid and directed to award the printing and binding work to the SSI units of the State including the members of the petitioners society. The judgment of this Court passed in Orissa Printers and Binders Mahasangha (supra) has not been challenged by either of the parties before the apex Court, consequentially it reached its finality. Subsequent to the aforementioned judgment, the State Level Purchase Committee (SLPC) in its meeting dated 24.11.2012 fixed the rate of private printing and binding of nationalized text books. While fixing the rate, the committee was apprised of the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned judgment. Consequentially, it was unanimously resolved to implement the rate approved by the technical committee. For the academic sessions 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, the decision of this Court in the aforementioned judgment remained unchallenged, and the same system of tender relating to SSI units continued. But, suddenly for the academic Session 2014-15, the State Level Purchase Committee in utter disregard to the judgment dated 19.05.2010 (mentioned supra) decided to procure the nationalized text books through national tender for the year 2013 and published the tender call notice on 07.06.2013, which was challenged in W.P.(C) No.13203 of 2013. This Court vide judgment dated 20.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 13203 of 2013 (M/s. Mohapatra Binders v. State of Odisha, reported in 2014 (Supp. 1) OLR 490), while upholding the previous judgment dated 19.05.2010, quashed the tender call notice dated 07.06.2013. Further, this Court in order to address the issue of timely delivery, formulated the guidelines as follows; “21. This Court vide judgment dated 20.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 13203 of 2013 (M/s. Mohapatra Binders v. State of Odisha, reported in 2014 (Supp. 1) OLR 490), while upholding the previous judgment dated 19.05.2010, quashed the tender call notice dated 07.06.2013. Further, this Court in order to address the issue of timely delivery, formulated the guidelines as follows; “21. In the fact situation, we issue the following directions:- (i) Opposite parties shall entrust the Printing and Binding Works of Nationalized Text books to the petitioners like the preceding years; (ii) For the purpose of negotiation of rate, the petitioners/their representatives shall present themselves before the competent authority, i.e., opposite party No.2- Director of Text Book Production and Marketing, Bhubaneswar on 26th. of this month; (iii) Opposite parties must ensure timely supply of papers to the Printers, who in turn complete their printing work in time. The binders must ensure timely completion of their binding work. (iv) It is open to the opposite parties to take necessary action as permissible if delay is attributable to any Printers and/or Binders in completing their work in time. 22. Before parting with the case, we feel it appropriate to make an observation that the State and its instrumentalities while taking a decision to procure any materials and services for their use, they must give preference to the manufacturers of the required goods and service 17 providers, who are SSI Units, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises holding EPM rate contract, since various industrial policies are being floated by the Government to support the small scale industries and under the MSMED Act protection is also given to Micro Small and Medium Enterprises. Otherwise, the very purpose of framing of Industrial Policy Resolutions as well as enactment of the MSMED Act would be frustrated. The MSMED Act was enacted with an intention to provide for facilitating promotion, development and enhancing the competitiveness among MSM Enterprises.” The State Government being aggrieved by the judgment in M/s. Mohapatra Binders (supra) preferred SLP (Civil) No. 30891 of 2014 and SLP (Civil) Nos. 5252, 5253 and 5254 of 2015 before the apex Court with a prayer to quash the said judgment dated 20.12.2013. While entertaining such SLPs, the apex Court passed an interim on 01.07.2013 staying implementation of the judgment dated 20.12.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13203 of 2013. 5252, 5253 and 5254 of 2015 before the apex Court with a prayer to quash the said judgment dated 20.12.2013. While entertaining such SLPs, the apex Court passed an interim on 01.07.2013 staying implementation of the judgment dated 20.12.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13203 of 2013. On the basis of the said interim order passed by the apex Court, opposite party no.1 issued a tender call notice on 22.08.2015. But, the apex Court vide order dated 29.09.2015 was pleased to pass the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that because of the passage of time these petitions have become infructuous. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly, disposed of having became infructuous. However, it would be open to the petitioners to reconsider its policy with regard to getting its text books printed and bound and to take appropriate decision after having due deliberation on the subject matter of these petitions” In view of the aforesaid order passed by the apex Court, the interim order passed on 01.07.2013 stood vacated and it merged with the final order dated 29.09.2015. Since no decision was rendered by the apex Court, by way of adjudication of the aforementioned SLPs, as a consequence thereof, the principle laid down by this Court in M/s. Mohapatra Binders (supra) remained unaltered. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 continued the tender process pursuant to tender call notice dated 22.08.2015, notwithstanding the dismissal of SLPs by the apex Court. As a result, the petitioners along with others again approached this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 19062, 19099 and 20138 of 2015. A Division Bench of this Court, while admitting the writ petitions on 26.10.2015, passed an interlocutory order to the following effect: “As in interim measure, it is directed that in view of the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13203 of 2013 (M/s. Mohapatra Binder Vrs. State of Odisha), disposed of on 20.12.2013, the tender process may continue but it shall not be finalized without leave of this Court till the next date.” But, however, for just and proper adjudication, the matters were referred to the Larger Bench. While considering the petitions for vacation of the interim order, the Larger Bench vide order dated 18.01.2016 vacated the interim order dated 26.10.2015 by assigning the following reasons: “14. While considering the petitions for vacation of the interim order, the Larger Bench vide order dated 18.01.2016 vacated the interim order dated 26.10.2015 by assigning the following reasons: “14. It is accordingly submitted that as the policy decision to procure the Nationalised Text Books through process of tender on All India basis is bona fide and in the interest of the students, the interim orders be vacated and the State be permitted to finalise the tender, to ensure supply of books to the concerned schools before beginning of the academic session 2016-17. 15. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review, will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/ procedural violation or some prejudice to self and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a Court would interfere in a tender or contractual matters in exercise of its power of judicial review, only if the process adopted or decision taken by the authority is found to be mala fide or arbitrary or irrational, which affects public interest. (See- Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others, (2007) 14 SCC 517). 16. Therefore, a Court would interfere in a tender or contractual matters in exercise of its power of judicial review, only if the process adopted or decision taken by the authority is found to be mala fide or arbitrary or irrational, which affects public interest. (See- Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others, (2007) 14 SCC 517). 16. In the present case, inspite of repeated opportunities, the petitioners have not been able to show as to what is the basis of their claim to be awarded the work of printing and binding of text books, especially when they are admittedly not rate contract holders. Merely because they have been issued with the work orders for printing and binding of text books for last many years, which may have been due to the judgments of this Court, the same does not give them a vested right to claim that the work of printing and binding of text books should be exclusively awarded to them, without inviting tenders. The petitioners having failed to establish that the issue of the impugned Tender Notice is in any way arbitrary or unreasonable or contrary to any statutory rules or policy of the State Government, we do not find any prima facie case to allow continuance of the interim orders, to the detriment of the students. 17. Accordingly, the interim orders dated 26.10.2015, passed in the aforesaid three writ petitions are hereby vacated and Misc. Case Nos.17870, 17900 and 17964 of 2015 are dismissed. Misc. Case Nos.18861, 18860 and 18859 of 2015 filed by the State for vacation of the interim order are accordingly allowed. These petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 issued the tender call notice on 09.06.2016 for printing and binding of the nationalized text books for the academic session 2017-18, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ applications. 4. Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Varadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 11817 of 2016 submitted that the apex Court, while disposing of the SLPs preferred by the State Government against the judgment dated 20.12.2013 in M/s. Mohapatra Binders (supra), categorically directed the State Government to reconsider its policy and take appropriate decision after having due deliberation. D. Varadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 11817 of 2016 submitted that the apex Court, while disposing of the SLPs preferred by the State Government against the judgment dated 20.12.2013 in M/s. Mohapatra Binders (supra), categorically directed the State Government to reconsider its policy and take appropriate decision after having due deliberation. There has been gross noncompliance of the said direction of the apex Court, inasmuch as, the State Level Purchase Committee (SLPC) in its meeting held on 24.11.2012 fixed the rate for printing and binding work, for which the petitioners agreed in principle, but the authorities have acted contrary to the judgment passed by the apex Court by issuing the impugned tender call notice. It is further contended that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in The Orissa Printers and Binders Mahasangha and M/s. Mohapatra Binders (supra) having been referred to a Larger Bench, though the interim order passed by the Division Bench has been vacated by the Larger Bench, subsequently the writ petitions have been dismissed as withdrawn and the issues involved in the said cases have not been finally adjudicated. Continuance of the tender process without complying with the direction issued by the apex Court and without the legality and propriety of the judgment rendered by this Court in The Orissa Printers and Binders Mahasangha and M/s. Mohapatra Binders (supra) having been decided by the Larger Bench, would amount to perpetuity of illegality committed by the State authority. In other words, by proceeding with such tender process, it would defeat the purport of MSME Act and the provisions of the Industrial policy of the State Government. As a result, the benefits conferred by the statutory provision would be replaced by an executive decision and more so, such action is contumacious due to noncompliance of the order passed by the apex Court while disposing the SLPs. It is further contended that since the judgments of this Court upon the national tender between the same parties and on the same subject-matter are in force and the same have neither been set aside by the apex Court nor by the Larger Bench of this Court, with all fairness, the national tender cannot take place for printing and binding of nationalized text books. By virtue of the impugned tender call notice, the small entrepreneurs like the petitioners would not only come to be absolutely ineligible for participating in the same but, at the same time, they cannot compete with the bigger industries outside the State. So, the very purport of MSMED Act, 2006 and various provisions of the IPRs to protect the small scale industries would be frustrated. As regards the apprehension of delay in supplying of the books, for which the nationalized tender is being invited, Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it has no basis at all in view of the fact that due to delay and laches on the part of the State authorities in providing the papers to the successful tenderers, the delay in printing has been caused, which cannot be attributable to the petitioners. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play the impugned tender notice is liable to be quashed. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Parappa Ningappa Khaded v. Mallappa Kallappa, AIR 1956 Bombay 332, State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, (2009) 5 SCC 694 . 5. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Digambar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12427 of 2016, while admitting the contention raised by Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel, has specifically contended that the Government of Odisha has framed different Industrial Policy Resolutions since the year 1980. As many as seven IPRs, i.e., 1980, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1996, 2001, and 2007 have been issued by the State Government with an objective to extend employment opportunity and to protect small scale industries, micro and mini industries located inside the State. The petitioners and the like units are employing nearly seventy thousand old, physically challenged, divorcees and persons belonging to lower economic strata. The policy thread running in all IPRs with regard to small scale sector of micro mini entrepreneurs is discernable indicating three guidelines, namely, (i) purchase preference policy; (ii) price preference policy; and (iii) marketing preference policy, which have been consistently included in all the IPRs. These three guidelines are not mutually exclusive in terms of the mandate of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, which gives the mandate reserving goods and service for the small scale industries. These three guidelines are not mutually exclusive in terms of the mandate of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, which gives the mandate reserving goods and service for the small scale industries. To achieve such goal, the opposite parties are protecting the interest of the petitioners for last two decades. In 2007 IPR, it was indicated that the very same policy of purchase preference policy, price preference policy and marketing preference policy have been included. Imparting fiscal benefits is altogether different from reservation policy. It is contended that book binding and printing press, though included in the list of IPR 2007, they are only entitled for fiscal incentives but not policy protection of reserving the goods and services. More so, the basic objection is that the printing press and book binding have been allegedly excluded from the exclusive purchase list. The State Government in its clarificatory letter dated 08.01.2010 issued by the Director of Industries, Odisha, Cuttack clarified that the book binding and printing press are not in exclusive purchase list. Consequentially, the policy of protection imparted to the SSI units of the State is no longer available to such type of industries. Therefore, a preliminary question is raised with regard to the jurisdiction/competence of the Director to issue such type of clarificatory order, when the State Government in IPR 2007 in Clause-13.1(a) specifically states that comprehensive review of rate contract purchase list, exclusive purchase list and open tender purchase list shall be undertaken by a committee consisting of Secretary, Industries Department; Director, Export Promotion and Marketing (PM); Director, Industries and representatives of Industries Association, who shall submit their recommendation for Government approval in the Industries Department. But, no such committee has been constituted at any point of time either for exclusion of printing press and book binding from the exclusive purchase list or to be treated in a different manner, and no such decision has been taken by the authority. More so, there is no Cabinet approval or approval of the State Government of such exclusion, as indicated in the clarifictory letter dated 08.01.2010 or letter dated 25.06.2013. Apart from the same, both the letters dated 08.01.2010 and 25.06.2013 are not based on the recommendation made by the committee, as contemplated under Clause-13.1 of the IPR, 2007/ Development Policy, 2009. More so, there is no Cabinet approval or approval of the State Government of such exclusion, as indicated in the clarifictory letter dated 08.01.2010 or letter dated 25.06.2013. Apart from the same, both the letters dated 08.01.2010 and 25.06.2013 are not based on the recommendation made by the committee, as contemplated under Clause-13.1 of the IPR, 2007/ Development Policy, 2009. The stake holders like the Printers and Binders Mahasangh, which is a recognized association of the opposite parties, has never been given any opportunity of hearing in contravention to the mandate of the IPR, 2007. It is further urged that certain information had been called for under the Right to Information Act, more particularly to provide documents/note sheets/order-sheets indicating whether any committee has been constituted to exclude printing press/book binding from exclusive list or from EPM contract list and what was the decision of the said committee has never been informed, rather it has been stated that “no such information is available in the Directorate”. From the above, it can be construed that exclusion of book binding and printing press from exclusive list has never been notified. The judgment dated 20.12.2013 passed by this Court in Mohapatra Binders case (supra) was challenged by the State Government before the apex Court in SLP(C) No.30891 of 2014 and allied cases and the State Government for consideration by the apex Court raised the following issues: “A. Whether, the Hon’ble High Court of Orissas is justified in interfering in the policy matter of the State regarding a contract? B. Whether, the doctrine of res judicata applies in the facts of present case particularly the contract in subject pertaining to a restricted academic year? C. Whether, the writ petition filed by the respondents was indeed maintainable as there was no enforceable right accrued in favour of the respondents which could have been said to be increased by act of the State? D. Whether, it is just and proper to cast the liability of the welfare state concept on the State only whether other parties intently providing impediment in State efforts to render welfare of the public at large as well as that of the society in large? E. Whether, it is justifiable that without considering all the niceties of IPR 2007 and MSME, 2009 policy, an adverse judgment on the basis of earlier judgment is passed? E. Whether, it is justifiable that without considering all the niceties of IPR 2007 and MSME, 2009 policy, an adverse judgment on the basis of earlier judgment is passed? F. Whether, judgment passed in such type of cases would not only send a wrong signal and said a wrong proceeding in future. In view of serious allegation against the respondent that they do not confirm to the requirement of the policy as qualified by the Director, Industries and Director of Export Promotion and Marketing. The printing press/ approve binding industries are not listed under the EP & M rate contract list or exclusive list? G. Whether, a benefit of preferential treatment can be provided under the guise of SSI units when the parties do not come under the category of specified list as per the State Government Industrial Policies.” In the synopsis submitted in the aforesaid SLP, it was specifically contended as follows: “the said tender was challenged by various interested local party before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha, Cuttack in a writ petition on 18.06.2013 to quash the impugned All India Tender Call Notice on the ground that such tender was only meant for SSI units and Micro Industries under policy frame work of IPR, 2007 and in conjunction with Odisha MSME Policy, 2009 and also that exactly in a similar matter in the year 2010 the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa had quashed the tender in view of its earlier order in the same type of matter in W.P.(C) No.2862/2010 dated 19.05.2010.” By order dated 29.09.2015, the apex Court disposed of the SLP as infructuous and directed the State Government, the petitioners therein to reconsider the policy with regard to getting its text book printed and bound and to take appropriate decision after having due deliberation on the subject matter of those petitions. Therefore, it is reiterated that, without complying the order passed by the apex Court for reconsideration, the present tender call notice cannot sustain. Therefore, it is reiterated that, without complying the order passed by the apex Court for reconsideration, the present tender call notice cannot sustain. It is further contended that printers, binders and cover printers being registered DIC units having been treated for the last three decades to be protected and the entire equipment of TBPM having been fulfilled by the petitioners and the like MSEs, cover printers and text printers, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the judgments passed by this Court in the Orissa Printers and Binders Mahasangha and M/s Mohapatra Binders (supra). In IPR, 2001 exclusive list of purchasers was published and at serial no.11 it was indicated “paper and paper products”. Paper and paper product includes printing and binding. The category is inclusive one and accordingly the State Government for the whole three decades treated the entry as inclusive of printing and binding, i.e., cover printing and text printing. The apex Court also interpreted the words “paper and paper products” and held that the “paper” whether lined and blank means a material on which writing, printing, drawing, etc. can be drawn. Therefore, in the line of the meaning attached to the word “paper” it cannot be disputed that cover printing and text printing are nothing but collection of sheets of paper (blank or lined) stitched together by a piece of string or pinned together/stapled, and it is substantively used for writing would squarely fall within the meaning of paper. It is also contended that the meaning of “paper” defined in Oxford Dictionary as “a substance used for writing, printing, drawing, etc. made up interlaced fibers of ribs, straw, wood, etc.” Therefore, it is stated that the entry paper and paper products squarely and wholly includes printing, cover printing and text printing. It is further urged that applying the doctrine of desuetude the State Government denuded its power to float tender in All India basis once again for the academic session 2017-18. It is further urged that as per IPR 2007 and even before that the printers, cover printers and text printers have been given marketing support, protecting their interest in terms of the mandate of the MSMED Act, 2006. The review of the exclusive list has been considered by a committee. The decision making process is also contained in MSME Development Policy, 2009, IPR 2015 as well as in the Draft Procurement Policy, 2015. The review of the exclusive list has been considered by a committee. The decision making process is also contained in MSME Development Policy, 2009, IPR 2015 as well as in the Draft Procurement Policy, 2015. Under the IPR or MSMED Policy, 2009 or Purchase Policy, 2015 the State Government has never come up with clear and categorical list in black and white clearly delineating the three different lists, i.e., (a) rate contract purchase list; (b) exclusive purchase list and (c) open tender purchase list. The concept of marketing support flowing all through the IPRs as well as Development Policy specifically contained three kinds of policies with regard to MSEs, namely, (i) price preference policy; (ii) exclusive purchase policy and (iii) reservation policy/dereservation policy. Therefore, decision making process with regard to inclusion and/or exclusion or reservation/dereservation having not been specified till date excluding the printing press is absolutely misconceived one. From the statistics available, the petitioners and the like units satisfy the requirements by providing maximum number of books well within the time stipulated. The Industries Department pursuant to the MSME Development Policy, 2009 and notification dated 21.06.2007 issued a notification on 27.05.2015 wherein specific decision has been taken that goods and services other than those in the rate contract list or exclusive list to be purchased by State Government through open tender. It was also declared that local MSEs, which are having ISO or ISI certification, such units would get additional price preference of 3% over and above price preference of 10%. Clause-13 of the IPR 2015 or Clause-10 of IPR 2007 never makes it mandatory for procurement from local MSEs with any ISO/ISI certification, the reason being printing/binding involves such operations and process which do not have any BIS standard under the BIS Act. In any case, the Director of Industries is not competent authority under the MSMED Act, 2006 or under the IPRs to issue any clarification that the printing SSI units are not in the exclusive purchase list. Section-11 of the MSMED Act, 2006 speaks of procurement preference policy for which the Central Government or the State Government by order notify the preference policies with respect to procurement of goods and services provided by MSEs. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Section-11 of the MSMED Act, 2006 speaks of procurement preference policy for which the Central Government or the State Government by order notify the preference policies with respect to procurement of goods and services provided by MSEs. To substantiate his contention, Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the apex Court in Maharaja Book Depot v. State of Gujarat, 1979 (1) SCC 295 ; Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, 1986 (1) SCC 11 and Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi v. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. etc., 2005 (7) SCC 118 . 6. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General, while justifying the action taken by the authority in issuing the impugned tender call notice, categorically contended that as per the Clause 3(ii) (iv) of the IPR 1980 the Government and semi- Government organizations have been directed to purchase their requirement of products of SSI units without inviting tenders wherever rate contract agreement has been entered into by the concerned units with the Directorate of Export Promotion Marketing. Since none of the present petitioners have entered into rate contract agreement with the Directorate of Export Promotion Marketing for printing and binding works of books, the benefit would not be admissible to them. Similarly, in IPR 2007, as per clause 13.3 similar provision has been provided, but in Clause 13.6, it has been provided that for facilitating government purchase of MSE products, an “MSE Exclusive List” shall be prepared by Director of Industries, taking into account the items generally manufactured by the MSE units of the State. The book binding and printing press are enlisted under the category of units which are not eligible for fiscal incentives as industrial units, but shall be eligible for investment facilitation, allotment of land under normal rules and recommendations to the financial institutions for term loan and working capital and for recommendation, if necessary to the Power Distribution Corporation. In the letter dated 08.01.2010 of the Director of Industries addressed to the Special Secretary to Government of Orissa, Industries Department, Bhubaneswar, it has been specifically mentioned that printing press/book binding industries are not listed under the EP & M rate contract list or “exclusive list”, that is in force now. Therefore, the petitioners’ units without having ISO/ ISI/EPM certification cannot claim the benefits of exclusive purchase from their units. Therefore, the petitioners’ units without having ISO/ ISI/EPM certification cannot claim the benefits of exclusive purchase from their units. The Orissa MSME Development Policy, 2009 framed under the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006, came into force w.e.f. 17.02.2009. Under Clause 7.2(c)(i) of the said policy, it has been provided that list of goods and services reserved for exclusive purchase from MSEs located within the State of Orissa will be prepared from time to time keeping in view the production capacity of the local MSEs and requirements of the State Government departments and agencies under its control, that the said list shall consist of items for which sufficient production capacity exists within the State of Orissa so as to meet the entire demand of the Government Sector and that such list shall be prepared and notified by the Director, EP & M. Clause 7.2(d)(i) thereof gives some price preference. But, the petitioners’ SSI units neither have rate contract enlistment nor the printing/binding works find place in the exclusive purchase list, which is revealed from the letter date 08.01.2010. Consequentially, they are not entitled to get any preferential treatment as claimed in the writ petition as per IPRs as well as MSMED Act. 2006 being small scale industries. It is further contended that as per Clause-18 of the OMSMED Policy, 2009, which shall be read in conjunction with IPR 2007, the units as enlisted in Annexure-II, Schedule-Point (3) of IPR, 2007 shall not be eligible for fiscal incentives under this policy, but shall be eligible for investment facilitation, allotment of land under normal rules and recommendations to the financial institutions for term loan and work capital and for recommendation, if necessary, to the power distribution corporation. As per Clause-10(c) of the Orissa Industrial Policy, 2015, which came into force w.e.f. 24.08.2015, to facilitate government purchase of MSE products, an MSE Exclusive list shall be prepared by Directorate of Export Promotion and Marketing (EP & M) and the items so listed shall be reserved for the MSE units of the State for Government procurement through limited tender system. Since the printing and book binding are not enlisted under the EPM rate contract, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit as claimed in the writ applications. Since the printing and book binding are not enlisted under the EPM rate contract, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit as claimed in the writ applications. Similarly, as per clause-3 of the Orissa Industrial Policy, 2015, it provides list of units which are neither eligible for fiscal incentives specified under the IPR, 2015 nor for allotment of land at concessional rates in the State, but shall be eligible for allotment of land at concessional rates in the State, but shall be eligible for investment facilitation, allotment of land under normal rules at benchmark value/market rate and recommendations to the financial institutions for term loan and working capital and for recommendation, if necessary, to the power distribution companies. In the said list book binding is included at serial no.29. Therefore, the petitioners’ units having not been included under the exclusive list prepared by the Directorate of Export Promotion and Marketing, they are not entitled to get the benefits as provided in Clause-3 of IPR 2015. As per the provisions contained under Section 11 of the MSMED Act, 2006, which is to be read in conjunction with Odisha MSME Development Policy, 2009, the Odisha Procurement Preference Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises, 2015 emphasizes the mandatory procurement preference so as to broaden the marketing avenues for micro and small enterprises of the State vide Notification dated 10.06.2015. Clause 10.1 of Odisha Procurement Preference Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises, 2015 contemplates that State Government departments and agencies and other agencies as in part 4.2 and 4.3 of the said Policy shall set up an annual goal of procurement of products produced and services rendered by Micro and Small Enterprises as enlisted so as to achieve procurement of minimum twenty percent of the value of their requirement from local Micro and Small Enterprises within a period of three years from the year of notification of the said policy. As per the appendix of Odisha Procurement Preference Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises, 2015, which contains the list of items reserve for purchase from micro and small enterprises including handicraft, handloom, khadi sector, but the printing and binding do not find place. Thereby the petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefit as claimed in the writ petitions. As per the appendix of Odisha Procurement Preference Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises, 2015, which contains the list of items reserve for purchase from micro and small enterprises including handicraft, handloom, khadi sector, but the printing and binding do not find place. Thereby the petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefit as claimed in the writ petitions. It is further contended that the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguished from the facts and circumstances of the present case and it is urged that the said judgments have been rendered in the facts and circumstances of the said cases only which have no application to the present context. 7. We have heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty and Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ applications and Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General for the State and perused the records. Considering the urgency in the matter, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter has been taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 8. The factual position, as discussed in detail above, is not in dispute. Admittedly, the judgments of this Court in Orissa Printers and Binders Mahasangha and M/s Mohapatra Binders (supra) are staring at face as the ratio decided therein have neither been set aside nor modified nor clarified by the apex Court, even though the judgments passed in M/s Mohapatra Binders (supra) had been challenged before the apex Court, but the SLPs have been disposed of as infructuous directing the State Government to reconsider the matter by due deliberation and effectively the State Government has not made any attempt in compliance of the order passed by the apex Court for such due deliberation and come out with the impugned notification for inviting nationalized tender for the session 2017-18, particularly when, while assailing the judgment in M/s Mohapatra Binders (supra), the State Government had formulated different issues, which have been elaborately stated above. Apart from the same, when a fresh notification had been issued by the State Government and was subject-matter of challenge before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.19062, 19099 and 19178 of 2015, while granting an interim order, the matters were referred to the Larger Bench for adjudication. Apart from the same, when a fresh notification had been issued by the State Government and was subject-matter of challenge before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.19062, 19099 and 19178 of 2015, while granting an interim order, the matters were referred to the Larger Bench for adjudication. But, the Larger Bench without considering the questions raised in the said writ applications, by a detailed order, vacated the interim order passed in those cases vide order dated 18.01.2016, and, subsequently, by efflux of time the petitioners in those cases have withdrawn the same, as a result of which there was no effective adjudication of the dispute raised in the said writ applications. On perusal of the earlier judgments of this Court in Orissa Printers and Binders Mahasangha and M/s Mohapatra Binders (supra) though relief has been granted to the petitioners, but the same have been decided on two separate contexts altogether. Thereby, this Court is of the considered view that a question arises as to whether similar benefits can be extended to the petitioners in the present context or not. The present notification inviting nationalized tender for supply of books for the academic session 2017-18 has been issued, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ application. This time also similar tender call notice issued on 09.06.2016 has been challenged on the selfsame grounds, which requires a deliberation and law to be laid down for future reference. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench for consideration of the following substantial questions: (i) Whether the ratio decided by this Court in Orissa Printers and Binders Mahasangha and M/s Mohapatra Binders (supra) still holds the field? (ii) Whether the petitioners, which are the binders and printers of the books and registered under the District Industries Centre as Small Scale Industries are entitled to get any benefit under the IPRs of the State vis-à-vis MSMED Act, 2006 and Policy framed thereunder in 2009? (iii) If any relief can be granted to the petitioners? 9. The matter is referred to the Larger Bench to answer the above reference. The matter may be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the administrative side for constituting the Larger Bench for effective adjudication of the reference made above.