JUSTICE v. NARASINGH ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12797 of 2025 Maa Bhagabati Self Help Group (SHG), Puri …. Petitioner Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties 1. State of Odisha 2. The Additional Secretary, Women and Child Development Department and Mission Shakti, Govt. of Odisha, Lokseva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar 3. The Collector and District Magistrate, Puri 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Puri 5. The District Social Welfare Officer, office of the Collector & District Magistrate, Puri
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.P. Das, Advocate Page 1 of 6 CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Decision
ORDER 08.05.2025 Order No. 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief; “xxx xxx xxx I. issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned Letter No. 9544, WCD, Dated 10.04.2025 (ANNEXURE-7) issued by the opposite party No.02/ Additional Secretary, Women and Child Development Department and Mission Shakti, Govt. of Odisha, on the ground of arbitrary, mala fides and colorable exercise of power. II. If the opposite parties failed to show cause or insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court may please to make the rule absolute and direct the opposite parties to execute the contract with the Petitioner’s SHG for twelve (12) months as prescribed in the Clause No. 12 of the REVISED GUIDELINES, 2018. xxx xxx xxx” 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order at Annexure- 7 being contrary to the guidelines ,inter alia, regarding the time limit of 3 months, as against the 12 months set out in the guidelines, is liable to be Page 2 of 6 interfered with and consequential directions should be issued to execute the contract for period of 12 months, as admittedly the guidelines are still in vogue. 3A. For convenience of reference the impugned Annexure-7 is extracted hereunder; “xxx xxx xxx Government of Odisha Department of Women & Child Development No.WCD-ICDS-SCHM-0097-2017/954 WCD. Dt.10.04.2025 From Sri Anuj Kumar Das Pattanaik Additional Secretary to Govt. To All Collectors Sub: Renewal of the contract with eligible Self Help Groups(SHGs) engaged for preparation and supply of Take Home Ration(THR)-reg. Madam/Sir, In Inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to intimate you that, for administrative reasons, it has been decided to renew the contracts with SHGs for preparation and supply of Take Home Ration(THR) during the FY 2025- 26 for a period not exceeding three months i.e. upto 30th June, 2025. In view of the above, you are requested to verify eligibility of WSHGs engaged in THR production and renew their contracts as per above mentioned instructions. Selection of WSHGs for renewal should strictly follow all guidelines issued by Dept of W & CD from time to time in this regard. (Emphasized) Page 3 of 6 This may be treated as Most Urgent. Yours faithfully. Sd/- Additional Secretary to Govt. Memo No. 9545/ WCD, Date: 10.04.2025 Copy forwarded to all DSWOs/ all CDPOs for information and necessary action. Sd/- Additional Secretary to Govt. xxx xxx xxx” 4. Learned counsel for the State seeks dismissal of the present Writ Petition, inter alia, on the ground of maintainability. 5. On a bare perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-7, it is seen that to ensure uninterrupted supply to the beneficiaries of Take Home Rations (THRs) and since the contracts of some of the SHGs like the present Petitioner has expired in the meanwhile as a matter of policy and for “administrative reasons’’, the same has been extended up to 30.06.2025 evidently, as a temporary measure. 6. It is apposite to note that as per contract conditions, normally the contract should be for a period of one year and before such one year, the decision can be taken to either renew or rescind the contract. Page 4 of 6 In the considered view of this Court such stipulation as above does not ipso facto confer any vested right on the Petitioner to claim that fresh contract, notwithstanding the expiry of the term of the earlier contract should be executed with the Petitioner for a period of one year. 7. Taking into account the background in which Annexure-7 has been issued considering the exigency of the expiry of an existing contract and to ensure that there is no dislocation of supply of THRs the contract period of one year as stipulated in contract condition 12(i) cannot be directed to be read into the impugned Annexure-7, as claimed. Such contract conditions, which are part of the guidelines, are extracted hereunder; “xxx xxx xxx 12. Contract conditions i. A contract should be signed between the CDPO and the SHG(s) laying down the terms and conditions of preparation and supply. Normally, the contract should be for a period of one year only. Draft Contract at Annexure-VII. ii. Before the end of one year a review of the SHG(s) performance should be made by the Collector after which a decision can be taken to either renew or rescind the contract. iii. In case any SHG(s) is found to have deviated from the guidelines and made Chhatua/Ladoo that has less protein and calorie than prescribed or has sold the Chhatua/Ladoo in the market by Page 5 of 6 misutilizing government money, strictest possible action should be taken against the SHG(s). This would entail termination of the contract, stoppage of micro credit support by the department to the SHG(s). A fine can also be enforced on the SHG(s). Proper procedure ensuring natural justice should be followed before taking any action. xxx xxx xxx” This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that such measure has been taken in respect of all the SHGs across the state. As such, the same comes within the ambit of “policy” and this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner to interfere with the same and to issue mandamus in exercise of power of Judicial Review compelling the State to execute an agreement for one year instead of three months. 8. The Writ Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 9. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (V. Narasingh) Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-May-2025 18:52:47 Page 6 of 6