ORDER/JUDGMENT (Through Video Conferencing) : – Shri Harshad Bahirani, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Khot, Counsel for the State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief : – “a. That in view of the fact narrated above, impugned order/ advertisement issued at annexure P/1 and P/2 may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice and further may kindly be directed that in pursuant of the guide lines dated 20-1-2021 petitioner be continued in the interest of justice. b. That any other suitable relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the fact of the circumstance of the case. The cost of the present petition also may kindly be awarded.” 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per Clause 12.1 of guidelines issued on 20-1-2021, the self help groups, which were working efficiently, were allowed to continue. Although, the petitioner is distributing mid day meal for the last several years, but in spite of Clause 12.1 of the guidelines dated 20-1-2021, the respondents have issued an expression of interest dated 18-3-2021 and an amended expression of interest on 3-4-2021. It is further submitted that the self help groups and to be selected by a committee whereas the expression of interest has been issued by District Project Officer, Women and Child Welfare, District Morena, therefore, the expression of interest is also bad in law. 4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted by Shri Khot that in fact the guidelines dated 20-1-2021 have already been amended by amendment order dated 5-5-2021 and Clause 12.1 has been deleted and thus, the reliance of the petitioner on deleted Clause 12.1 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021 is bad in law. 5. So far as the competency of the District Project Officer to issue expression of interest is concerned, it is submitted that as per the guidelines dated 20-1-2021, a self help group is to be selected by a committee of officers mentioned in the Clause 1.2 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021 and that stage has not arrived yet. It is further submitted that the District Project Officer is also one of the member of committee and, therefore, it cannot be said that the expression of interest issued under the signatures of District Project Officer is without competence. 6. It is further submitted that the District Project Officer is also one of the member of committee and, therefore, it cannot be said that the expression of interest issued under the signatures of District Project Officer is without competence. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner has relied on Clause 12.1 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021, which reads as under : – 8. One W. P. No. 13316/2021 was filed by Kakanmath Swa Sahayata Samooh, by which the amendment order dated 5-5-2021 was challenged and the following reliefs were sought in W. P. No. 13316/2021 : – “7.A. It is therefore, humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction may kindly be issued and the impugned amendment dated 5-5-2021 issued by the respondent No. 1 to the extent of deletion of clause 12.1 from instructions dated 20-1-2021 ANX-P/6 may kindly be quashed and the respondents may kindly be directed to issue the fresh instructions by including clause 12.1 of the instructions Anx-P/6. B. Any, other suitable order or relief in the facts and circumstances of the case Hon’ble Court found suitable may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.” 9. Writ petition filed by Kakanmath Swa Sahayat Samooh (supra) was withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner by order dated 29-7-2021 after arguing the matter at length. Thus, it is clear that the Clause 12.1 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021 are not in existence and reliance by the petitioner on the non existing Clause 12.1 amounts to misleading the Court. 10. It is submitted by Shri Bahirani that in fact the petitioner was not aware of the order dated 5-5-2021, therefore, could not bring it to the notice of the Court. 11. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 12. Ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non-excusat. A mistake of fact is pardonable but the mistake of law is not pardonable. Before filing a writ petition and relying upon any guideline, the petitioner is always expected to verify the latest legal position specifically whether the guidelines on which the petitioner wants to reliance are still in existence or not. 13. In fact the petitioner has tried to obtain a favourable interim order on the basis of non existing guideline contained in Clause 12.1 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021. 13. In fact the petitioner has tried to obtain a favourable interim order on the basis of non existing guideline contained in Clause 12.1 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021. If the petitioner says that the petition was filed without verifying the latest legal position, then it can be said that the petition was filed in a rash and negligent manner and if the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the subsequent amended guidelines dated 5-5-2021, then the conduct of the petitioner would certainly amount to playing fraud on the Court. 14. Be that whatever it may. 15. In absence of any evidence that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the subsequent order dated 5-5-2021, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner must have filed a writ petition in a rash and casual manner without verifying the true facts of the case. 16. Since, Clause 12.1 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021 has already been deleted by order dated 5-5-2021, therefore, the petitioner has no right to continue to supply mid day meal on account of fact that the petitioner is supplying mid day meal for the last several years. 17. Furthermore, the State Government has rightly deleted the Clause 12.1 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021. The said guidelines would have otherwise created monopoly of a self help group, who is supplying the mid day meal. Neither the State Government nor this Court cannot approve a situation, which would result in creating monopoly of a person in trade/business. Monopoly in a trade is not an integral part of fundamental right enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. In fact by incorporating. Clause 12.1 in guidelines dated 20-1-2021, the State Government had ousted the other aspirants from participating. 18. Be that whatever it may. 19. Since, Clause 12.1 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021 has already been deleted, therefore, no further deliberation is required on this aspect. 20. So far as the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that since, the expression of interest has been issued by the District Project Officer, therefore, the same is without jurisdiction is concerned, the same is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. As per Clause 1.2 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021, the self help group is to be selected by a committee of authorities mentioned in the said Clause. Issuance of expression of interest does not amount to selection. As per Clause 1.2 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021, the self help group is to be selected by a committee of authorities mentioned in the said Clause. Issuance of expression of interest does not amount to selection. Only after the applications are received, the committee would come into picture and the committee would be under obligation to select self help group. Since, that situation has not arrived, therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that reliance of the petitioner on Clause 1.2 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021 is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 21. No other argument is advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 22. Since, this petition has been filed without placing the order dated 5-5-2021 on record, by which the Clause 12.1 of guidelines dated 20-1-2021 has been deleted, accordingly, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in the Registry of this Court within a period of seven days from today. 23. If the cost is not deposited within a period of seven days, then the Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to initiate the proceedings for recovery of the cost as well as to register a case for contempt of Court against the petitioner.