Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 846 (PAT)

Mithilesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar

2022-10-11

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, SHAILENDRA SINGH

body2022
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:— (i) For quashing the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 issued under the signature of the Additional Chief Secretary-cum- Chairman, Bihar State Mid-Day Meal Committee by which it was decided that since the vehicles used by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation are installed with GPS and handling charges are relatively less and they have fair price shop situated in every village, therefore, the grain to be lifted/distributed under the Pradhanmantri Poshan Shakti Nirman Yojana (for short ‘P.M. Poshan Yojna’) would be executed through the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (for short ‘B.S.F.C.’) contractors, so that consistency would be maintained. (ii) For quashing the order dated 28.03.2022 bearing memo no. 649 dated 06.04.2022 issued under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar wherein it was decided that since the vehicles used by the B.S.F.C. are installed with GPS system and their handling charges are relatively less, therefore, the grain to be lifted/distributed under the P.M. Poshan Yojna would be executed through B.S.F.C. contractors and on the basis of direction of the Chief Secretary the last date is fixed for 30.06.2022 for commencement of lifting and distribution of food grain under the P.M. Poshan Yojna through B.S.F.C. contractors. (iii) For quashing the letter no.926 dated 09.05.2022 issued under the signature of Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, wherein it has been decided that from 01.06.2022 the lifting and distribution of grain under P.M. Poshan Yojna would be done through the contractors of the B.S.F.C. and the agreements executed with the petitioners and similarly situated persons would be terminated by 30.05.2022. (iv) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the individual orders whereby the agreements in relation to Mid Day Meal contractors including the petitioners have been terminated with effect from 30.05.2022. (iv) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the individual orders whereby the agreements in relation to Mid Day Meal contractors including the petitioners have been terminated with effect from 30.05.2022. (v) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent education department not to publish any fresh notice inviting tender for appointing contractor for distribution of grain under P.M. Poshan Yojna or getting the work done thorough the contractor of B.S.F.C. (vi) For issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to restore the agreement if any cancelled/terminated pursuant to letter no. 926 dated 21.05.2022 with consequential benefits and compensation and allow the petitioners to continue with the lifting/distribution of grain for a period of two years as stipulated in the respective agreements. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the P.M. Poshan Yojna was earlier known as National Program of Mid-Day Meal in Schools. It is one of the foremost rights based centrally sponsored scheme under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short ‘N.F.S. Act’). The primary objective of the scheme is to improve the nutritional status of children studying in classes I-VIII in eligible schools. The scheme addresses two of the pressing problems for majority of children in India, viz. hunger and education by improving the nutritional status of eligible children in Government and Government aided schools. It also encourages poor children belonging to disadvantaged sections to attend school more regularly and help them concentrate on classroom activities. 4. To further the objective of the P.M. Poshan Yojna, implementation of Mid-Day Meal Scheme is executed in every State. In the State of Bihar, implementation of this scheme comes under the Education Department and the Bihar State Mid-Day Meal Scheme Committee has been constituted for the said purpose. In this context, the State Government has issued a letter dated 20.11.2017 wherein guidelines have been stipulated in connection with the lifting/distribution of grain for implementation of Mid-Day Meal Scheme at the Block level. Through these guidelines, it has been stipulated that for every district there will be a committee constituted for selection of contractor for lifting/distribution and handling of food grains. The guidelines further mention the conditions that will govern the selection and also the terms of agreement executed for implementation of Mid-Day Meal Scheme. 5. Through these guidelines, it has been stipulated that for every district there will be a committee constituted for selection of contractor for lifting/distribution and handling of food grains. The guidelines further mention the conditions that will govern the selection and also the terms of agreement executed for implementation of Mid-Day Meal Scheme. 5. On the basis of the guidelines issued by the Director, Mid-Day Meal Project, notice inviting tender (for short ‘NIT’) was published in different districts in relation to lifting of food grains from the godown of B.S.F.C. and distribution to the store of schools at the panchayat level with the Block. 6. Pursuant to the respective NITs, the respondent authorities in different districts entered into individual agreement for the execution of the work of lifting and distribution of grains. The respective petitioners of these cases entered into individual agreement with the concerned District Program Officer-cum-Member Secretary, District Level Contractor Selection Committee on different dates. The agreements were executed for a period of two years clearly stipulating the grounds on which they could be terminated. 7. On 25.03.2022, the Bihar State Mid-Day Meal Committee held a meeting and took a decision that since the vehicles used by the B.S.F.C. contractors are installed with GPS and their handling charges are relatively less and they have fair price shop instituted in every place, grains to be lifted/distributed under the P.M. Poshan Yojna would be executed through the B.S.F.C. contractors so that consistency may be maintained. The said decision was taken under the signature of the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, Bihar State Mid-Day Meal Committee. 8. In view of the aforesaid decision dated 25.03.2022, again, on 28.03.2022, a meeting of the Bihar State Mid-Day Meal Committee was held under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Bihar in presence of the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department along with other officials and it was decided that since the vehicles used by the B.S.F.C. are installed with GPS system and their handling charges are less, grains to be lifted/distributed under the P.M. Poshan Yojna would be executed through B.S.F.C. contractors. It was further decided that the last-date for commencement of lifting and distribution of food grains under the P.M. Poshan Yojna through the contractors of B.S.F.C. is fixed as 30.06.2022. 9. It was further decided that the last-date for commencement of lifting and distribution of food grains under the P.M. Poshan Yojna through the contractors of B.S.F.C. is fixed as 30.06.2022. 9. Consequently, an order dated 09.05.2022 under the signature of the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar was issued stating therein that pursuant to the decision dated 25.03.2022 of the Bihar State Mid-Day Meal Committee, it has been resolved that from 01.06.2022 lifting and distribution of grain under the P.M. PoshanYojna would be carried out from the contractors of the B.S.F.C. It was also resolved that the agreements executed with the petitioners in these cases and similarly situated persons would be terminated by 30.05.2022. Pursuant to the aforesaid decisions taken by the respondent authorities, the agreements entered into with the petitioners in these cases and similarly situated Mid-Day Meal contractors were terminated. 10. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in taking work from the contractors of B.S.F.C., the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 11. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing in CWJC No. 8807 of 2022, CWJC No. 6489 of 2022 and CWJC No. 9650 of 2022 being assisted by Ms Shristi Singh, learned counsel, has made the lead argument on behalf of the petitioners. He contended that the agreements were executed with the petitioners for a period of two years clearly stipulating the grounds on which they could be terminated, but the same have been terminated unilaterally by the respondents arbitrarily. He submitted that among others, negligence or inaction on the part of the contractor in carrying out the work or unsatisfactory execution of work was the ground on which the agreement entered into between the parties could have been terminated. He contended that in terms of the NIT one of the essential conditions was that for 15 Panchayats under one Block, 5 tractors/pick-up/other small vehicles and for more than 15 Panchayats, 8 tractors/pick-up/other small vehicles should be available with the contractor at the time of agreement. Another essential condition for being eligible to participate in the NIT was that two vehicles must be registered in the name of the tenderer. For demonstrating the availability of remaining vehicles, the tenderer was required to furnish corresponding agreement executed by the owners of the vehicles permitting use for lifting grains. Another essential condition for being eligible to participate in the NIT was that two vehicles must be registered in the name of the tenderer. For demonstrating the availability of remaining vehicles, the tenderer was required to furnish corresponding agreement executed by the owners of the vehicles permitting use for lifting grains. He submitted that most of the petitioners have made substantial investments towards purchase of vehicles for being successful tenderer. Some of the petitioners took loan against the purchase of vehicles from different banks/financial institutions. Therefore, they have altered their position in terms of the NIT published by the Bihar State Mid-Day Meal Committee. 12. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel contended that once the contract had been concluded, the respondents were precluded from unilaterally terminating it especially when the petitioners acting on that promise had altered their position. He submitted that in terms of the NIT the petitioners have deposited security deposit of Rs.50,000/-. He argued that once the State is a party to a contract, it has obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably, which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel further argued that there is no rational decision in prematurely ending the agreements, which has a serious impact on the petitioners. In fact, the decision has such a harsh consequence that due to premature termination of the agreement, the petitioners would not be in a position to repay the EMI as well as principal amount on which the vehicles had been purchased causing them great and irreparable injustice. He urged that the petitioners are ready to install GPS system in their vehicles. 14. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel further contended that in so far as the lesser handling charges is concerned, the price has been fixed by the State Mid-Day Meal Committee at the rate of Rs.40/- per quintal and, thus, the basis for taking decision in the name of lesser handling charges is unjustified. 14. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel further contended that in so far as the lesser handling charges is concerned, the price has been fixed by the State Mid-Day Meal Committee at the rate of Rs.40/- per quintal and, thus, the basis for taking decision in the name of lesser handling charges is unjustified. Lastly, he contended that no cogent reason for taking decision for ending the agreement on or before 30.05.2022 has been assigned in the decision for distributing the grains of P.M. Poshan Yojna through the contractors of B.S.F.C. and the impugned action on the part of the respondents is violative of the principle of natural justice as no opportunity has been granted to the petitioners to present their case before the authorities while taking decision of prematurely ending the contract. According to him, the impugned orders suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafide. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners in other cases have either reiterated or adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel. 16. Countering the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Girijish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the decision taken in the impugned orders has already been implemented and the transportation of food grains is being carried out by the concerned Door Step Delivery Agents of the B.S.F.C. with effect from 01.06.2022 save and except the contractors working in 25 Blocks of six districts in view of the order of interim status quo dated 17.05.2022 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6489 of 2022 wherein there are 25 petitioners. He contended that the aforesaid policy decision to entrust the transportation of food grain sunder the P.M. Poshan Yojna to the Door Step Delivery Agent of the B.S.F.C. from the existing contractors appointed by the concerned District Level Selection Committee, Mid-Day Meal Scheme has been taken to safeguard the transportation of food grains, stop the pilferage, use the infrastructure already working in the B.S.F.C. for monitoring the transportation and the amount incurred in transportation being lesser than what was being spent earlier. He submitted that the process of delivering food grains to the respective schools have been periodically reviewed and necessary changes were brought in the interest of the scheme. He submitted that the process of delivering food grains to the respective schools have been periodically reviewed and necessary changes were brought in the interest of the scheme. Despite periodic changes brought in the process of delivery of food grains several complaints were being received from different quarter either related with delayed delivery or pilferage of food grain or less quantity of food grains being received, etc. In the process of effective and efficient distribution of food grains, the State Government examined the process of transportation and handling done by the B.S.F.C. from its godown to the different PDS dealers. The State found that the B.S.F.C. has well established infrastructure to deliver food grain from the godown of the B.S.F.C. to the PDS dealers. The B.S.F.C. has up-to-date monitoring system installed at their headquarter, which monitors each vehicle transporting the food grains from the B.S.F.C. Each vehicle used for transporting food grains in the B.S.F.C. is equipped not only with GPS system but load cell also. Hence, the B.S.F.C. not only monitors the movement of the vehicle but also monitors the load it carries, 7which minimizes the pilferage of food grain and ensures the delivery of actual quantity to the destination. In this view of the matter, the proposal for entrusting the delivery of food grain to the store of respective schools by the Door Step Delivery Agent has been initiated and a deliberation was made with the officers of the B.S.F.C. in this regard. He submitted that it was noticed that there was no need to establish a separate monitoring system for the Mid-Day Meal contractors as similar system had already been working in the B.S.F.C. A query was made from the B.S.F.C. in this regard and the B.S.F.C., vide letter dated 07.05.2021 replied positively to the query made and agreed that the Door Step Delivery Agent can be assigned the work of transporting the food grains to the store of different schools and the cost of transportation incurred in the delivery would be same as fixed for delivering food grains to the different PDS dealers, i.e. Rs.38.40 per quintal, which is less than Rs.40/- as fixed for Mid-Day Meal contractors like the petitioners. He submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafide. The purpose is to protect public interest. He submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafide. The purpose is to protect public interest. He argued that there is no evidence that the petitioners altered their position pursuant to the agreement. He contended that the agreement would clearly demonstrate that the petitioners do not have any legal right to transport the food grain from one destination to another. The agreement would suggest that they were merely empanelled contractors by the respondents. Mere empanelment does not confer any right to the petitioners to uplift and distribute the food grains under the scheme to the respective schools. He contended that according to the terms of the agreement, the contractors were to transport the food grains between 22nd and 30th day of each month only after getting SIO. Moreover, the agreement also contains a clause that the contractors will have to install GPS system in the vehicles, which would be used for transporting the food grains from the godown to the schools, but the said condition was not followed by the contractors. He submitted that the power of judicial review should not be invoked as the decision taken by the respondents is in public interest. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. [ (2007) 14 SCC 517 ]. 17. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State while adopting the submissions made on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, produced a copy of the guidelines under the National Program of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of School Education and Literacy) and relied upon its clause 3.8 to support the contention that the decision has been taken in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Government. He submitted that though the guidelines were issued in 2006 in public interest, the same was not being implemented, but by taking a decision to distribute the grains under P.M. Poshan Yojna through BSFC, the policy has been implemented. He submitted that though the guidelines were issued in 2006 in public interest, the same was not being implemented, but by taking a decision to distribute the grains under P.M. Poshan Yojna through BSFC, the policy has been implemented. He submitted that the writ petitions would not be maintainable as it relates to contractual matter and in case the petitioners have suffered any injury due to the cancellation of the agreements, it is a pure and simple case of breach of contract, which may be adjudicated by way of filing a proper suit. 18. In reply, Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners do not have any legal right and are merely empanelled is flawed and distorted interpretation of the agreement. He contended that no document in support of such empanelment has been brought on record by the respondent authorities and unsubstantiated and uncorroborated arguments have been made to mislead the Court. He argued that as a matter of fact, the agreements would lead to an unambiguous inference that the process was undertaken by the Government to select one contractor for each block and there is no mention of empanelling separate contractors for each block or even the concerned district. He contended that there is vested right in the petitioners for execution of work for a full period of two years as the distribution of grains has to be undertaken by the contractors between 22nd and 30th day of every month. He submitted that when the State is a party to a contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably and alternative remedy would not be a bar where there is failure of principle of natural justice. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Seil Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 440], Popcorn Entertainment & Anr. Vs. City Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. [ (2007) 9 SCC 593 ] and UP Tower Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs. CG Power & Industrial Solutions Ltd. [ (2021) 6 SCC 15 ]. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 20. Vs. Seil Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 440], Popcorn Entertainment & Anr. Vs. City Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. [ (2007) 9 SCC 593 ] and UP Tower Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs. CG Power & Industrial Solutions Ltd. [ (2021) 6 SCC 15 ]. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 20. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the agreements in question were entered into between the parties for a period of two years. An argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners are merely empanelled contractors. In this regard, Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has rightly argued that such argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that no document in support of such empanelment has been brought on record by the respondent authorities and a perusal of the NIT and the agreements would lead to an unambiguous inference that the entire process was taken by the Government to select only one contractor for each block and there is no mention of empanelling contractor for each block or even the concerned district. There is no any whisper of the term panel contractors. 21. However, it would be evident from perusal of the agreement entered into between the parties that there was no guarantee in terms of the agreement to take work from them. In terms of the agreement, the distribution of grains had to be undertaken by the contractors on issuance of SIO between 22nd and 30th day of every month. That would mean that unless an SIO is issued for transporting grains from the godown to the respective schools, the contractors could not transport grains to the respective schools. Thus, it cannot be said that by entering into an agreement, the contractors had earned any vested right to transport or distribute grains to the respective schools. We are of the opinion that even if the agreement would not have been cancelled, the respondents were free to award the work of lifting and distribution of food grains to any other agency. The impugned orders would suggest that the decision to cancel the agreements and award the work of lifting and transportation of food grains to B.S.F.C. agents was taken primarily because the vehicles used by the B.S.F.C. were installed with GPS system and their handling charges were relatively less. 22. The impugned orders would suggest that the decision to cancel the agreements and award the work of lifting and transportation of food grains to B.S.F.C. agents was taken primarily because the vehicles used by the B.S.F.C. were installed with GPS system and their handling charges were relatively less. 22. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that each vehicle used for transportation for B.S.F.C. is equipped not only with GPS system but load cell also, which helps B.S.F.C. in monitoring the movement of the vehicle as well as the load it carries and it minimizes the pilferage of the grain and ensure delivery of actual quantity to the destination. On examination of the agreements entered into between the parties, we find that it was specifically stipulated in the agreements that the vehicles used for transportation and distribution of grains by the contractors will have necessarily to be equipped with GPS system. It is true that no show cause was ever asked from the petitioners as to why they were using their vehicles for transportation which were not equipped with GPS system, but when this question was raised by the court in the course of argument, Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel for the petitioners expressed his willingness that if so required the petitioners are also ready to install GPS system in their respective vehicles. This would clearly mean that the petitioners admit that the vehicles being used by them for lifting and transporting the grains under the scheme were not equipped with GPS system. Under such circumstance, we are of the opinion that even if no show cause was asked from the petitioners by the respondents, remanding the matter back to the respondent authorities on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice would be an empty formality. It is an admitted position that the petitioners themselves have violated the terms of the agreement. 23. We are of the opinion that if the respondents have taken a decision to protect the public interest and use the vehicles being used by the B.S.F.C. in which monitoring system has already been installed, it would not be proper for this Court to invoke its power of judicial review to protect the private interest. 24. 23. We are of the opinion that if the respondents have taken a decision to protect the public interest and use the vehicles being used by the B.S.F.C. in which monitoring system has already been installed, it would not be proper for this Court to invoke its power of judicial review to protect the private interest. 24. In this regard, the respondents have rightly placed their reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:— “Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides. 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 before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions : (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions : (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say : 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached.' (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving black-listing or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of state largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 25. In the instant case, it is reiterated that it is an admitted position that the despite there being a provision in the agreement for installing GPS system, the petitioners did not install GPS system in the vehicles being used by them for the transportation work. The procedural irregularities of non-issuance of show cause in this regard would be inconsequential in view of their admission in the course of argument that they are still ready to install GPS system in the vehicles being used by them for transportation and distribution of food grain. 26. It has rightly been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the impugned decision would not only save public money but it would also ensure protection of pilferage of food grains and would further ensure delivery of actual quantity of food grains to the store of the respective schools. Moreover, it is not a case where the impugned decision has been taken in favour of any particular person or persons. The action of the respondents appears to be bonafide and in public interest and in view of the ratio of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal (supra), we are of the opinion that it would not be proper for this Court to would not exercise its power of judicial review to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or decide contractual disputes. 27. Furthermore, the policy decision under the National Program of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2006 justifies the action of the respondents. 27. Furthermore, the policy decision under the National Program of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2006 justifies the action of the respondents. Clause 3.8 of the said policy decision reads as under:— “3.8 Nodal Agency/Agencies for transportation of food grains.—Transportation of food grains from nearest FCI depot to each Primary School/EGS-AIE Centre is a major logistical responsibility. State Government will be expected to make arrangements in this regard in the following manner:— (i) Wherever appropriate, a single Govt./Semi-Government agency with State wide jurisdiction and net work, e.g. State Civil Supplies Corporation, may be designated as the State Nodal Transport Agency. This Agency will be responsible for lifting food grains from FCI godowns and delivering them to designated authority at the taluk/block level. State Government will also need to make foolproof arrangements to ensure that the food grains are carried fromthe taluk/block level to each school, etc., in a timely manner. (ii) Alternatively, District/ Taluks Panchayats may be assigned the responsibility for different districts/ taluks or groups of districts/taluks in the State.” 28. It is settled law that an interference with the policy decision would not be warranted unless it is found that the policy decision is palpably arbitrary, malafide, irrational or violative of the statutory provisions. In the instant case, the decision to transport the food grains by the Door Step Delivery Agents of the B.S.F.C. is a policy decision which is neither arbitrary nor malafide nor irrational. It is also not violative of any statutory provisions. The impugned decision has been taken by the respondents to check pilferage of food grains under the scheme. Hence, we are of the opinion that it would not be proper to interfere with the policy decision of the State Government, which is in larger public interest. 29. In APM Terminals B.V. Vs. Union of India and another [ (2011) 6 SCC 756 ], the Supreme Court observed as under:— “It has been the consistent view of this Court that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest and provided such change in policy was guided by reason. Several decisions have been cited by the parties in this regard in the context of preventing private monopolisation of port activities to an extent where such private player would assume a dominant position which would enable them to control not only the berthing of ships but the tariff for use of the port facilities.” 30. Recently, in Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority etc. Vs. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society & Ors. etc. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 655], the Supreme Court reiterated that change in policy by the Government, if guided by reason and done in public interest, would prevail over the private agreement entered into between the Government and private parties. The Court held “… it is more than settled that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest. The additional requirement is that such change in policy is required to be guided by reason”. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that sufficient reason has been assigned by the respondents for the change in policy of transportation of food grains under the scheme. Hence, the change in policy by the Government will have an overriding effect over private agreement between the concerned Government authorities and the respective petitioners. 31. It is true that the policy is of year 2006 and the respondent authorities being aware of it for more than 16 years did not follow it. From perusal of Clause 3.8 of the policy, it would be evident that the impugned orders are in consonance with the direction contained in the policy with respect to the role of the State Food and Civil Supplies Corporations in lifting of grain from the godown and delivering it to respective schools. The impugned action on the part of the respondents cannot be held to be bad simply for the reason that the said policy is being implemented after 16 years. 32. In the instant case, we reiterate that the decision taken by the State Government to carry out transportation of food grains by the Door Step Delivery Agents of the B.S.F.C. was in public interest with sound reasoning. 32. In the instant case, we reiterate that the decision taken by the State Government to carry out transportation of food grains by the Door Step Delivery Agents of the B.S.F.C. was in public interest with sound reasoning. The doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation cannot prevail over the policy introduced by the Government, which does not suffer from any perversity, unfairness or unreasonableness or it does not violate any fundamental or enforceable right vested in the petitioners. 33. The petitioners have relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Seil Ltd. & Ors. (supra), Popcorn Entertainment & Anr. Vs. City Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. (supra) and UP Tower Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs. CG Power & Industrial Solutions Ltd. (supra) while contending that once the State is a party to a contract, it has obligation in law to act justly and reasonably and if the action is illegal and without jurisdiction and the principle of natural justice has been violated, the Court should interfere in the matter and under such circumstances, availability of alternative remedy would not be a bar. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. However, the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable. Hence, we find that the impugned decision has been taken by the respondent authorities in public interest. We further find that the impugned decision is neither malafide nor arbitrary rather the same has been taken to ensure stoppage of pilferage of food grains and further to ensure delivery of actual quantity of food grains to the store of the respective schools for providing Mid-Day Meal to the deserving children. We are also of the opinion that the petitioners cannot take plea of violation of principle of natural justice and guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is an admitted position that they themselves have breached the terms of the agreement by not using the vehicles for transportation and distribution of food grain equipped with GPS system. 34. Under such circumstance, we are of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be allowed to take the shelter of the decisions of the Supreme Court to cover their own illegality. 34. Under such circumstance, we are of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be allowed to take the shelter of the decisions of the Supreme Court to cover their own illegality. We are also of the opinion that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal (supra), APM Terminals (supra) and Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (supra) squarely covers the facts of the present case. 35. We see no merit in these applications. They are dismissed, accordingly.