# STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ETC v. S. K. KRISHNAMURTBI, ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 104
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-01-18
- **Case number:** C.A. No. 557 to 575 of 1971
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D. G. Palbkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-etc-v-s-k-krishnamurtbi-etc-etc-5588
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Madras EducaUonal Rules and Text-Book Committu Rules-Nature
of-Rights of Publishers .of approve!{ text-books-Government, if .stopped from chan11in11 text books.
Jn furtherance of the policy of the appellant.State to nationalise textbooks for schools, directions were issued to District Collectors and Local
Board authorities that they should intimate publishers of the text-boob
which were prescribed for the year 1969-70, that, after .the end of the
school year they will no longer be prescribed. The publishers challenged
the validity of the directions. The . High Court allowed the petitions on
the ground ·that though the. Madras Educational Rules and the Tex1>-Book
Committee Rules-under which lists of approved text-books are published
in the Gautte-are administrative instructions and are not framed for
the benefit of publishers, nonetheless, under those rules, a publisher of
text-books could proceed on the basis that be has an assurance that
once his books had been selected and prescribed as text-books, they will
continue to be prescribed .for 3 year8.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (!) The Ru)es are in the nature of Departmental Instructions
and do not confer any right on the publishers, nor are they designed to
safeguard the interest of publishers. They are conceived in public
interest and the Government is at liberty to change the textbooks and delete from and add to the list of approved text-books or even
prescribe books which are not in the list. Therefore, the impugned directions have been issued by the Government in exercise of the powers
reserved to it by the Rules themselves, !IOS C.E, F-01
(2) There is no warrant for concluding that the Rules held out any
kirid of representation or assurance to the publishers, or that the Rules
envisaged their participation in the scheme and as such the Government
was estopped fro01 resiling from the representation that the period of
3 vears will not be altered. f107 D-Fl
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
The selection of text ))oaks by the Text-Book Committee does not
involve any assurance to the publishers that their text-books will be prescribed. The selection only implied that the books have been approved. ll
any of the schools prescnbed any of the appro,-ed text-books there is no
assurance as to the number Of books that may be required. The period
during whicih a text book once prescribed is to continue, is an injunction
to the Managers of schools tel avoid hardship to failed candidates or to
poor students intending to buy second hand books.
It is not an aSStbnce
to the publishers, because, the Managers can change the text-books within
the specffied period with the approval of the prescribed authority. [108 E-H:
109 A-CJ
H
Stale of Assam v, Ajit Kumar Sharma & Ors., U96S] 1 S.C.R., 890,
followed.
TAMlL NADU v. KRISHNAMURTHI (Jagallfr!Ohan Reddy, I.) 105
A
Union of l1tdia v. Mjs. Indo-Afglian Agencies Ltd., Ll968] 2 S.C.R.
B
c
366, Sank,;;ranarayanan, etc. v. State of Kera/a, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 361 and
M/s. Narinderchand Hemraj & Ors. v. LD. Gbvernor, Union
Tern'tory
Himadwl Pradesh & Ors., C.A. No. 1313/70 dt. 5-10-71, referred to.

## Text

104
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ETC.
v.
S. K. KRISHNAMURTBI, ETC. ETC.
January 18, 1972
(K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALBKAR, JJ.)
Madras EducaUonal Rules and Text-Book Committu Rules-Nature
of-Rights of Publishers .of approve!{ text-books-Government, if .stopped from chan11in11 text books.
Jn furtherance of the policy of the appellant.State to nationalise textbooks for schools, directions were issued to District Collectors and Local
Board authorities that they should intimate publishers of the text-boob
which were prescribed for the year 1969-70, that, after .the end of the
school year they will no longer be prescribed. The publishers challenged
the validity of the directions. The . High Court allowed the petitions on
the ground ·that though the. Madras Educational Rules and the Tex1>-Book
Committee Rules-under which lists of approved text-books are published
in the Gautte-are administrative instructions and are not framed for
the benefit of publishers, nonetheless, under those rules, a publisher of
text-books could proceed on the basis that be has an assurance that
once his books had been selected and prescribed as text-books, they will
continue to be prescribed .for 3 year8.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (!) The Ru)es are in the nature of Departmental Instructions
and do not confer any right on the publishers, nor are they designed to
safeguard the interest of publishers. They are conceived in public
interest and the Government is at liberty to change the textbooks and delete from and add to the list of approved text-books or even
prescribe books which are not in the list. Therefore, the impugned directions have been issued by the Government in exercise of the powers
reserved to it by the Rules themselves, !IOS C.E, F-01
(2) There is no warrant for concluding that the Rules held out any
kirid of representation or assurance to the publishers, or that the Rules
envisaged their participation in the scheme and as such the Government
was estopped fro01 resiling from the representation that the period of
3 vears will not be altered. f107 D-Fl
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
The selection of text ))oaks by the Text-Book Committee does not
involve any assurance to the publishers that their text-books will be prescribed. The selection only implied that the books have been approved. ll
any of the schools prescnbed any of the appro,-ed text-books there is no
assurance as to the number Of books that may be required. The period
during whicih a text book once prescribed is to continue, is an injunction
to the Managers of schools tel avoid hardship to failed candidates or to
poor students intending to buy second hand books.
It is not an aSStbnce
to the publishers, because, the Managers can change the text-books within
the specffied period with the approval of the prescribed authority. [108 E-H:
109 A-CJ
H
Stale of Assam v, Ajit Kumar Sharma & Ors., U96S] 1 S.C.R., 890,
followed.
TAMlL NADU v. KRISHNAMURTHI (Jagallfr!Ohan Reddy, I.) 105
A
Union of l1tdia v. Mjs. Indo-Afglian Agencies Ltd., Ll968] 2 S.C.R.
B
c
366, Sank,;;ranarayanan, etc. v. State of Kera/a, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 361 and
M/s. Narinderchand Hemraj & Ors. v. LD. Gbvernor, Union
Tern'tory
Himadwl Pradesh & Ors., C.A. No. 1313/70 dt. 5-10-71, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 557 to 575 of
1971.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 3, 1970
of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. '768, 1465 and
1483 of 1970.
S. Govind Swaminadhan, Advocate-General for the State of
Tamil Nadu, S. Mohan and A. V. Rangam, for the appellants (in
all the appeals) .
K. K. Venugopal and K. R. Nanibiar, for the respondents (in
(C.A.s No. 557 to 559 and 561to575 of 1971).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. Jaganmoban Reddy, J.
22 Writ Petitions were filed in the
0
High Court of Madras by publishers of text-books for Government Schools, Dist!. Board and Municipal Council Schools challenging the directions of the Deputy Secretary to Government,
Education Department, contained in his D.O. letter No. 454582/
E5/69. Education, dated 12th August 1969, addressed to District
Collectors and Local Board authorities that they should intimate
to the publishers of the books which are prescribed for the year
E
1969-70 that after the end of the School year they will no longer
be prescribed. A Division Bench of the High Court .allowed the
Writ Petitions. From this decision, 19 appeals are before us by
certificate.
It appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu in
furtherance of its policy to nationalise text-books for schools, was
intending· to publish them through the Tamil Nadu Text Books
F
Corporation pursuant to which it had issued the impugned D.O.
Jeiter.
The writ petitions which are the subject matter of these
appeals raise similar grounds and we will adopt the averments in
Writ Petition No. 768/70 as being typic~l of the other Writ Petitions, w~ich course was also adopted by the High Court.
The respondent in that appeal, alleged that the impugned D.O.
G
letter giving the aforesaid directions is illegal and void as being
coqtrary to the Madras Educational Rules and the Text-Book
Committee Rules made by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in pursuance of the powers vasted under Article 162 of the Constitution
and affected respondent's fundamental rights under Article 19 (1)
( g) of the Constitution inasmuch as his business of publishing TextH
Books has been seriously jeopardised and has practically been
brought to a stililld-still; that it is not open to the Government of
Tamil Nadu to act contrary to the general rules made under Article
162 of the Constitution; tha~ the policy of nationalisation of the
8-L864SupCl{72
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
text-books is itself illegal and void; that the principles of natural
A
justice have been violated in that under the rules once text-books
have been approved and selected for the schools arid have been
prescribed. they remaiiied current for three years, as such to cancel this continuance for the remaining period without notice and
- without hearing would result in heavy financial loss; and that as
under Article 19(6) of the Constitu~on the trade carrfod out 'by
B
the private citizens can be restricted only in pursuance of a law
which enables the State to have a monopoly of that trade, it will
not be open to the State to set up a Text Books Society to have
a monopoly over the text-books trade without the authority: of
law and an executive order purporting to do this would be violative of Article 19(1){f) & (g) of the Constitution. It was further c
averred that even if it is assumed that Article 19(6) does not apply
to their case, their fundamental rights cannot be restricted only
for the purpose of enabling a State or the Corporation owned or
controlled by the State to carry on the particular trade to the exclusion of private citizens. The High Court disposed of the Writ
Petitions merely on the ground !,hat even though the Madras Education Rules like the Text Book Committee rules have been issued
D
in exercise of the administrative powers vested in the Government,
the inhibition against change of selected text-books within a period
of three years is not for the purposes of safeguarding the interest
of the publishers but is conceived in public interest, namely, that
the instit;ution concerned should not be at liberty to change the
books every year \vhich may involve hardships to the students.
E
Nonetheless it was of the view that a publisher of text-books could
proceed on the basis that he has some sort of assurance that once
his books have been selected _and prescribed as text-books, those
books will remain to be so prescribed for three years, on which
expectation he may, from a business point of view, have the requisite nnmber of text-books printed.in advance or stock the same.
F
It further observed that the publisher can well say unless the rules _
are changed, by no administrative instructions, the three years'
period can be curtailed to his prejudice. On this assumpt)ion it
held that "if a representation is made to some one of a particular
state of affairs to continue over a time and he acts on it and as a
result does something which has cost him time and money the
representator or the person who induced the belief and expectation
G
will not be at liberty to go back upon his representation or holding
out of expectation and withdraw hjs stand to the prejudice of the
one who has acted upon it". The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to invoke this principle in his favour in the instant case. The
contention urged on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu that the
rules being merely in the nature of administrative instructions, do
H
not have the force of law and cannot be enforced in courts was
negatived on two grounds, firstly, that even as an administrative
instruction, if it has the -force of ·representation which a n11blisher
TAMIL NADU v. KRISHNAMURTHI (Jaganmohan Reddy, /.) I 07
A may well rely 01;1 and commit himself to a certain position, it is
not open tx:> the authority to resile from it to his prejudice and
secondly, that .the rules referred io. are obviously traceable to the
executive power of• the Government under Article 162 of the
Constitution and provide for the procedure· for registration of
publisher~, submission of books by them for approval and their
B selection, which. books if approved !llld selected, are to be valid for
. a certain duration.
For these reasons the High Court observed
that "even 11$ an administrative instruction when it is codified in
that form, it is boui;td to be followed", and therefore, the executive
cannot say that because they have the administrative power they
are enl;itled to use and invoke such administrative power and act
c
for the purpose of its adoption in individual cases contrary to the
generality and tenor .of ihe rules.
Before us it is submitted on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu
by the learned Advocate General that the High Court adopted
two contradictory positions in that while holding that the rules
approving the text-books and prescribing them for schools though
D
administrative in character are not for the benefit of the publishers
nonetheless a representation is said to have been made to them
that once. they are prescribed they will not be changed for three
years.
There is in our view no warrant for concluding that the
Madras ·.Education Rules and the Text Book Committee Rules
:hold out any.representation or eVen an assurance. to the publishers
E
lhat the books once prescribed will not' be changed nor as contended· by the respondent's advocate is there any justification for the
·assumption that these rules envisage the participation of the publishers in the scheme and as such tbll Government will be estopped
from resiling from the representation that the period will not be
altered.
The Madras Education Rules though called rules are
II'
administrative instructions for !:he guidance pf !he Department.
.Rule 58 which deals with the text-books, staies that a consolidated
list oftext-books authorised by the Governmenn to be used under
the several subjects is published annually in the Fort St. George
Gazette; that Managers of schools. are at liberty. to select from
the latest list such books as they may deem most suitable proVi.ded
that the text-books so selected shall not be changed within. three
G
years of their introduction in any of the schools except with "the
previous approval of the Distric~ Education Officer in -the. :cise .of
. bofs' schools and the Inspectress in the case of girls' scho6ls. It
further states that no books (other than books for relie:ious instruction) not authorised by the Government 'shall be used in any recognised school. The Government, however, reserve to itself the
H
right to forbid or to prescribe the use of any book or books in the
recognised schools. The rules relating to· Madras text-books
. Committee which were iss11ed on November 26. 1965, set out the
ob.iects of the Committee, its constitution, fhe general grounds on
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 s.c.R.
A
which the books may be described as unsuitable, expression, printlii
ing and get-up, registration of publishers, rules relating to recognised schools, fees for scrutjny of books submitted for approval of
the text-book committee,, etc. In Rule 27, it i$ provided that any
book approved _for use in recognised schools as text-book shaU
retain its approval for five Yelll'S and in. Rule 30 it is provided
that all text-books used in recognised schools shall be selected
B
only from the approved list of text-books issued during the year
excepting books published by or on behalf of the Government.
It is also provided in Rule 32 that under the powers delegated to
him by the Government, the Director retains on behalf of the
Government the right to prescribe text-books in a particular subject for use in recognised schools, even though such books have
C
not been approved by the text-book committee.
A perusal of
these rules show that they are ·in the nature of Departmental instructions and do not confer any right on the publishers. Nor
are they, as held by the High Court, designed to safeguard the
interests of the publishers but are conceived in public interest.
The Government is at liberty to change those text-books or to
delete from or add to the list or even prescribe books which are D
not in the list.
When once it is accepted tliat those instructions
do not confer any right on nor create an interest in the publishers
but are conceived in the public interest and the Government has
full liberty in the matter of approval as well as the power of control over the kind of books that should be prescribed in the
schools, the p\!blishers cannot say that once they are prescribed
I:
they cannot be changed within the period for which they are
stated to be current.
The period during which a Text-book once
prescribed is to continue is more an injunction to the Managers
of the schools than an assurance to the publishers that they will
not be changed because that power, even if it is conferred by
administrative rules made under Article 162, which in our view r
they are not, empower the manage!'$ subject to the approval of
the authority concerned to change them within the period specified therein or the Government to forbid or prescribe the use of
any book or books in the recognised schools.
The impugned
letter in this case can, therefore, be said to have been issued by
the Government in exercise of the power reserved to it under
those very rules.
G
Even dehors these provisions the instructions do not extend
to the publishers any kind of representation or assurance.
The
selection of any text-books by the Committee does not confei: any
rights on the publishers that their text-books will be prescnbed.
All that the selection implies is that the books have been approved
as fit and of the standard which can be prescribed (or respective fl
classes in the schools by their managers.
There is no undertaking that they will be prescribed. If any of the schools prescribe the books in the approved list for their classes there is no
TAMIL NADU v. KRISHNAMURTHI (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) I 09
A -assurance or a holding out by them that a particular number of
books will be required. If the books that are printed are not
sold the risk is that of the publishers.
Nor can the schools which
have prescribed the book hold the publishers responsible if they
cannot at any time supply sufficient number of books to cope with
the needs of the school.
All that the instructions that a book
B
prescribed should not be changed for three years imply, as the
High Court rightly recognised, is to avoid any hardship to the
students.
Students may fail ·and have to repeat the course the
next year, or those who are promoted may not afford new books
but might go in for second hand books used in the previous years.
These are some of the hardships that may be sought to be
avoided by requiring the books prescribed to be current for three
C
school years.
It is true that a representation can be made to a person either
directly or indirectly if it was intended to be made to him when
it is brought to his notice.
But that is not the case here as it
D was in the Union of India & Ors v. Ml si lndo-Afghan Agencies
Ltd. ( 1), where under a scheme to increase exports of woollen
textiles, as an incentive it was provided that an exporter will be
granted certificates to import raw materials of a total amount
equal to 100% of the f.o.b. value of his exports.
The scheme
was under the Imports (Control) Order 1955 made pursuant to
E
section 3 of the Imports and Exports
(Control)
Act
1947.
Clause I 0 of the scheme provided that the Textile Commissioner
could grant an import certificate for a lesser amount if he is
satisfied, after holding an enquiry, that the declared value of the
goods c.~ported is higher than the real value of the goods.
The
Textile Commissioner collected evidence ex-parte and acting upon
the report of a Committee appointed by him, passed orders reducF
ing the import entitlements of the respondents without informing
th_em or giving them an opportunity to explain the materials on
the basis of which the said action was taken.
This Court held
that it could not be assumed merely because the policy is general
in terms and deals with the grant of licences for import of goods
and related matters, that it is statuory in character. But even if
G
it is only executive or administrative in character, courts have
power in appropriate cases to compel perfonnance of the ob!i~a
tions imposed by the scheme upon the Departmental authonttes.
On the terms of the scheme and the facts of the case, the action
of the Textile Commissioner in reducing the "import entitlement"
was considered to be bad and struck down.
This case was later
considered and explained in Sankaranarayanan, etc. etc. v. The
H State of Kerala('), and in ·an unreported decision in M/s.
(I) [1968) 2 S.C.R. 366.
(2) [1971] 2 S.C.R. 361.
110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] 3 S.C.R.
.Varinderchand Hemra; and Ors. v. Lt. Governor, Union TerriA
tory, Hlmachal Pradesh. &: Ors.(1), to both of which one of \IS
(Hegde, J.) was a party. In the fonner case it was pointed out
that "there is .no question of any :representation having been made
by the Government which was acted upon to their detriment by
the appellants". In the later case one of us, Hegde J, pointed
out tliat in the Indo-Afghan Agencies' case "This Court did not B
hold that the Government was not competent to change the
scheme. If the scheme had statutory force, it bound the Government as much as it bound the exporters.
In that event the
Court was competent to compel the Government to act according
to the scheme. If on the other hand the scheme contained merely
administrative instructions then the Government having made the C
representation referred to earlier, on the basis of which the
exporters had exported certain goods,
the Government was
estopped from gomg back on the representation made by it''.
The case which is more analogous to the one before us is The
State of Assam and Another v. Afit Kumar Sharma and Others(')
where a Constitution Bench of this Court which considered the
claim of the teacher of a private College affiliated to the Gauhati
D
Unive,">ity in Assam which received grants-in-aid from the State
on certain conditions set out in the form of Rules held that the
was not entitled to maintain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constituti9n. In that case Rule 7 of the Rules provided that
if a teacher stood for elections to the Legislature, he should be
on compulsory leave without pay from the date of the filing of
E
his nomination till the end of the next academic session or till the
termination of the term of office to which he may be elected as
the case may be.
The respondent who had recourse to this Rule
had after obtaining permission, stood as a candidate for Parliament and was defeated.
Thereafter, he rejoined his post but was
informed that he has been granted compulsory leave without pay
till the end of the academic session.
It was against this direction
F
lhat he filed a Writ Petition challenging the rules as being with·
out legal force and not binding on the Governing Body or the
respondent, which contention was, negatived on the ground that
the rules were merely administrative instructions not having the
force of the law as statutory rules and govern matters between
private colleges and the Government. In any view of the matG
ter, the claim of the respondents that there was any representation made to them or intended to be made is not justified.
In
this view, the appeals are allowed but as some of the contentions
raised im ihe petitions have not Ileen considered by the High
Court, the matter is remanded to it for disposal according to law.
There will be no order as to costs.
V.P.S.
Appeals allowed.
(t) C.A. 1313/70 decided on 5-10-71.
(2) [I 965] I S.C.R. 890.