The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.18134/2025, 8475/2025, 8484/2025, 8588/2025, 8597/2025, 8876/2025 and 18135/2025 (Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) A.F.R. In W.P.(C) No.18134/2025 M/s.Nitai Gaura Women’s S.H.G., Bhadrak … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioners : Mr.B. Routray, Sr. Advocate, Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate Mr. S.K.Samal, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A In W.P.(C) No.8475/2025 M/s.Maa Basulai Women Self Help Group and another … Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 1 of 37 Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioners : Mr. Amitav Das, Advocate Mr. K.K.Patel, Advocate Mr.Asok Mohanty, Sr.Advocate Mr.A.B.Parida, Advocate, Mr. B. Pradhan, Advocate Mr. S.P.Parida, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.8484/2025 M/s.Maa Basulai Women Self Help Group and another … Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioners : Mr. Amitav Das, Advocate Mr. K.K.Patel, Advocate Mr.Asok Mohanty, Sr.Advocate Mr.A.B.Parida, Advocate, Mr. B. Pradhan, Advocate Mr. S.P.Parida, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 2 of 37 In W.P.(C) No.8588/2025 M/s.Biswonath Self Help Group and another … Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioners :Mr. Asok Mohanty, Sr.Advocate Mr. P.K.Rath, Sr.Advocate Mr.D. Das, Advocate Mr.A.B.Parida, Advocate, Mr. L. Pradhan, Advocate Mr. S.P.Parida, Advocate Mr. L. Samantray,Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.8597/2025 M/s.Himmat Self Help Group and another … Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 3 of 37 Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioners : Mr. Amitav Das, Advocate Mr. K.K.Patel, Advocate Mr. B. Pradhan, Advocate Mr. A.K.Dash, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.8876/2025 M/s.Minara Self Help Group and another … Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioners :Mr. S.K.Mishra, Sr.Advocate Sr. Advocate, Mr.Asok Mohanty,
Legal Reasoning
Mr. J.Pradhan, Advocate Mr.S. Sahoo, Advocate Mr. L. Pradhan, Advocate Mr. S.P.Parida, Advocate Mr. L. Samantray,Advocate Mr. D. Das, Advocate Mr.A. Priya -versus- W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 4 of 37 For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.18135/2025 M/s.Binapani Women’s Self Help Group … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioners : Mr. J.K.Rath,Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K.Samal, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 24.10.2025. Sashikanta Mishra,J. All these Writ Petitions involve common questions of facts and law and being heard together,
Decision
are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These Writ Petitions, seven in number, can be categorized into two batches-W.P.(C) Nos.8475, W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 5 of 37 8484,8597,8588 and 8876 of 2025 forming the first batch while W.P.(C) Nos.18134 and 18135 of 2025, the second batch. 3. For brevity and convenience, the facts of one Writ Petition of each batch are taken up for consideration. As such, the facts of W.P.(C) No.8588/2025 of the first batch and W.P.(C) No.18134/2025 of the second batch are considered. 4. The Petitioner-M/s.Biswonath Self Help Group, Bhadrak(Petitioner SHG) was established in the year 2004 being registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Having fulfilled the eligibility criteria, it was issued with a food safety license under Regulation 2.1.4(6) of the Food Safety and Security (FSS) Act, 2006. It was engaged for preparation and distribution of Take Home Ration (THR) material in the Bhandaripokhari ICDS Project in the district of Bhadrak in the year 2011 by executing an agreement as per the prevailing guidelines. Take Home Ration (THR) is provided to pregnant and lactating women, W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 6 of 37 children aged between 6 months to 3 years and mal- nourished children on daily basis. The Government of Odisha, acting in terms of the relevant guidelines of the Government of India has adopted a principle of Ready To Eat (RTE) food (Chhatua) for all eligible beneficiaries. As per the instructions of the Government, rice-based or rice/wheat-based Chhatua shall be prepared by SHGs operating in the locality having all necessary infrastructure for drying, grinding and packaging equipment. The Government of Odisha in Women and Child Development (W & C.D) Department issued the revised guidelines for implementation of Take Home Ration, 2018 (2018 guidelines). As per Clause-7 of the said guidelines, only graded SHGs having experience in preparation of Chhatua along with necessary equipment are to be given preference in selection. Clause-12(ii) of the guidelines provides that before the end of one year a review of the performance of the SHG shall be made by the Collector after which a decision is to be taken either to renew or rescind the contract. In view of W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 7 of 37 satisfactory performance as certified by the Food Testing Laboratory, the Petitioner SHG’s contract was renewed from time to time since 2011. The latest contract was due to expire on 31.3.2025, but no process of assessment of performance was initiated as contemplated in the guidelines. On the contrary, the Collector, Bhadrak by letter dtd.19.3.2025 instructed all the CDPOs to publish fresh notification for the year 2025-26. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued by the CDPO on 20.3.2025 inviting applications from the eligible and willing SHGs for preparation and distribution of THR material. According to the Petitioner SHG, publication of advertisement is not contemplated in the guidelines and is therefore, bad in law. Moreover, no steps being taken to assess the performance of the unit and there also not being anything adverse against the Petitioner SHG, the issuance of the advertisement instead of renewing the contract with it cannot be sustained. On such facts, basically, the Petitioner SHG has filed W.P.(C) No.8588/2025 with the following prayer; W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 8 of 37 “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why (i) the advertisement dtd.20.3.2025 under Annexure-6 shall not be quashed after declaring the same as illegal and (ii) direction shall not be issued to the Opp.Party No.2 i.e., the Collector, Bhadrak to take steps to assess the performance of the Petitioners SHG and renew their contract with effect from 1.4.2025 to 31.3.2026 as contemplated under Clause-12(ii) of the Revised Guidelines, 2018 keeping in view Annexure-8 series within a stipulated period.” 5. Be it noted that during pendency of these Writ Petitions, as per decision taken by the Government, all the existing contracts with SHG’s scheduled to expire on 31.3.2025 have been extended initially till 30th June, 2025 and thereafter till 30th September, 2025. Presently, the contract stands extended till 31st December, 2025. The stand of the State Government as reflected in its counter affidavit is that the Petitioner SHG’s contract was rescinded earlier on 10.9.2019 because of an adverse report of Block Level Committee but it had been allowed by the District Level Committee to avoid interruption of feeding programme. It is further stated that though there is a provision in the guideline to renew the contract after assessing the performance of the SHG but in this case, the Collector W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 9 of 37 decided to go for a fresh tender to offer an even-playing field to all interested bidders as complaints/allegations were being raised during grievance hearing in different blocks and the Petitioner SHG has been engaged for a long period of 15 years. The advertisement was issued by the CDPO in the larger interest of the beneficiaries of the project due to public dissatisfaction over supply of poor quality of Chhatua, as noticed by the Collector in the field-level grievance cell camps. There is no question of harassing any WSHG, rather it is intended to give an opportunity to other WSHGs to improve their economic status as the present WSHG has already been engaged for more than 15 years. Therefore, an open tender was floated to have more competition among WSHG and to provide a level playing field to others. The Petitioner SHG is not debarred to participate in the open tender. 6. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit enclosing copy of enquiry report dtd.4.2.2025 by a committee headed by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak. In W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 10 of 37 the said inquiry, the beneficiaries and Anganwadi Workers have given statements that they are getting good quality and proper quantity of Chhatua from the Petitioner SHG. The Petitioner SHG protested against the false allegations by submitting a complaint to the Director, W & C.D. Department. As per the order of the Department, the Collector conducted a detailed inquiry and nothing adverse was reported against the Petitioner SHG in his report dtd.24.7.2025 submitted to the Government. It is further stated that there is no provision in the guidelines to issue an advertisement. It is also stated that the contracts of similarly placed SHGs in Bargarh, Jajpur and Keonjhar districts have been renewed. 7. In course of hearing, the Petitioner SHG has brought on record the test reports issued by the Food Testing Laboratory in its favour from time to time. 8. The Petitioner-M/s. Nitai Gaura Women’s SHG (Petitioner group) in W.P.(C) No.18134/2025 is a Self Help Group established in the year 2011 for W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 11 of 37 preparation and distribution of THR/Chhatua. Pursuant to letter dtd.19.3.2025 of the Collector, Bhadrak, the CDPO issued advertisement on 20.3.2025 inviting applications from the WSHGs. The Petitioner group submitted its application as it fulfilled all the eligibility criteria. By order dated 08.4.2025, the Collector, Bhadrak directed all the B.D.O-cum- Chairman of Block Level committee of the concerned ICDS Project regarding verification of infrastructure of the SHGs (applicants) pursuant to the advertisement and for submission of feasibility report. Accordingly, the concerned authorities visited the premises of the Petitioner group on 15.4.2025 and inspected the infrastructure, plant and machinery. The verification process was completed and report was submitted to the Collector on 15.4.2025. In view of the interlocutory order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8588/2025 on 9.4.2025, the selection process pursuant to the advertisement has not been finalized. The Petitioner group has invested more than Rs.50,00,000/- in setting up manufacturing unit and installed plant and W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 12 of 37 machinery. It has also obtained a Food Safety License. Thus, despite fulfilling all eligibility criteria, the Petitioner group is unable to be selected pursuant to the advertisement because of the interlocutory order passed by this Court in the above mentioned Writ Petition. The contract with Biswonath WSHG has expired since long, but it has been allowed to continue by virtue of order passed by this Court. On such facts, the Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner group with the following prayer; “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to: i) Admit the writ petition. ii) Call for the record. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs direction/directions directing the opposite parties particularly the opp party No-2 i.e the Collector & District Magistrate, Bhadrak to take render Anneyaume-3 necessary steps to finalize the selection process of Women Self Help Group those who have applied pursuant to the advertisement dtd. 20.03.2025 for supply of THR (Chhatua) under SNP Programme for the year 2025-26 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice. iv) And/or order/orders, such direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper for the ends of justice. other pass And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 13 of 37 9. Counter affidavit has been filed by Biswonath WSHG (Opp.Party No.5), inter alia, stating that the revised guidelines do not empower the Collector to issue advertisement for which such advertisement issued on 20.3.2025 has been challenged in the Writ Petition filed by it in W.P.(C) No.8588/2025 seeking quashment of the same. Since the notification itself is illegal, the writ Petitioner cannot claim any right under it. Moreover, when the performance of the answering Opp.Party was certified as good, the Collector, instead of renewing the contract decided to go for a fresh advertisement, though in other districts the contracts of existing SHGs have been renewed. The writ Petitioner has no locus standi in the matter as it has not yet been selected pursuant to the advertisement, which is under challenge. There is nothing adverse against the answering Opp.Party (Biswonath WSHG). On the contrary, the samples tested by the Food Testing Laboratory were found to be satisfactory. In the inquiry conducted on the order of the Collector, the W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 14 of 37 beneficiaries have certified the performance of Biswonath WSHG to be satisfactory. Some persons having vested interest have been trying to oust it from the contract. 10. Heard Mr.S.K.Mishra, learned Senior counsel, Mr. P.K.Rath, learned Senior counsel, Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior counsel, and Mr.Amitav Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners in the first batch of the Writ Petitions and Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior counsel, Mr. J.K.Rath, learned Senior counsel and Mr. S.K.Samal, learned counsel for the Petitioners in the second batch of Writ Petition. Also heard Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 11. Both the Senior counsel Mr. S.K.Mishra and Mr. P.K.Rath have made similar arguments, the gist of which is as follows: There is no provision whatsoever in the 2018 guidelines for selection of WSHGs by issuing W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 15 of 37 advertisement. Clause-7 provides the method of selection of SHGs while Clause-12 provides that before the end of one year, the performance of the SHG should be reviewed by the Collector and thereafter a decision is to be taken either to renew or rescind the contract. Mr. Mishra has also referred to an executive instruction vide letter dtd.25.7.2019 issued by the Director through ICDS and D.S.W.O. to all Collectors reiterating the provision in the contract for renewal or rescission of contract by the Collector. In the said instructions, it has been reiterated that the decision of the Collector for renewal or rescission of the contract has to be based on a review of the performance of the SHGs and by taking inputs from other stakeholders. On such basis, Mr. Mishra would argue that the Collector has no power to straightaway issue advertisement without following the process mentioned in Clause-12(ii) of the guidelines. The advertisement, according to Mr. Mishra, is entirely unsustainable in the eye of law. W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 16 of 37 12. Mr. Amitav Das while adopting the above arguments would further submit that not only did the Collector exceed his jurisdiction by deciding to issue advertisement ignoring the guidelines but fact also remains that the performance of the existing SHGs have been found to be satisfactory as per the report submitted by the State Testing Laboratory. Mr. Das draws attention of this Court to an earlier instruction issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government in W & C.D. Department vide letter dtd.8.6.2012 wherein it is clearly stipulated that unless a particular SHG is found to have been supplying substandard Chhatua or not conforming to Government guidelines for Chhatua processing, there is no need to replace that SHG. In case it is necessary to replace a SHG, a thorough verification of its performance should be done and approved at the district level. It is also mentioned therein that systematically replacing existing SHGs with new SHGs without any concrete reason would negatively impact the SNP programme. W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 17 of 37 13. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable since it is a dispute arising out of a contract for which civil remedies are available. He further argues that renewal of contract is not a vested right and is subject to performance review and lies within the discretion of the Collector under Clause-12(ii) of the 2018 guidelines. Mr. Routray also argues that the employer/authority has the discretion to determine criteria for selection as long as it is non- arbitrary and transparent. The Collector exercising his discretion has issued an open advertisement which ensure transparency and fairness in line with Article 14. On the other hand, the Petitioner claims automatic renewal of contract which is contrary to the principle of equality under Article 14. It is further submitted that in all the THR processing unit, the existing WSHG’s have been engaged for over a decade and therefore issuance of a fresh advertisement to select the best among the WSHGs cannot be faulted. The underlying objective of formation of WSHGs is W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 18 of 37 promote economic empowerment by providing opportunities to different groups, if the same set of WSHGs are continued indefinitely without opening up opportunities to new ones, the very purpose of the scheme would be frustrated. 14. With regard to the case of the Petitioner (Nitai Goura) in W.P.(C) No.18134/2025, Mr. Routray, learned Senior counsel, would argue that the Petitioner having fulfilled the eligibility criteria has participated in the open tender process pursuant to the advertisement but the selection process has been stalled because of an interlocutory order passed by this Court in the connected Writ Petitions. The Addl. Secretary to Government has no power to extend the contract unilaterally beyond the contract period. In the process, the fair and transparent process of selection undertaken by the Collector has been unnecessarily interfered with. 15. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate would argue that no party to a contract can W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 19 of 37 claim automatic renewal of contract indefinitely. Renewal of contract is always based on review of performance. Several complaints were received against Biswonath WSHG and the testing reports were also found to be adverse. Though there is no specific provision in the guidelines, the Collector, in order to ensure a level-playing field for all eligible WSHGs decided to float an open advertisement. Such decision was not actuated by any malafides. Moreover, it offers right of participation to all eligible SHGs including the Petitioners. 16. The question of maintainability of the Writ Petition having been raised, it would be apposite to first deal with it. In this context, as already stated, learned Senior counsel Mr. Routrary has forcefully argued that the disputes arising out of contracts cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case at hand is one in which there is allegation of breach of contract by the Collector and therefore, the W.P.(C) No.18134 of 2025 and batch Page 20 of 37 same cannot be brought within the purview of inquiry by the Writ Court. Mr. Routray has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, 1and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 7712. In the former case, the Supreme Court reiterated that disputes arising purely out of contracts, especially when factual issues or alternative remedies are available must be relegated to civil proceedings. In the latter case, the Supreme Court clarified that the writ is not an alternative to statutory/civil remedies when disputed facts are involved. There can be no quarrel with regard to the propositions laid in the above quoted decisions. It is true that ordinarily, the Writ Court would not interfere in purely contractual disputes. There are, however, certain exceptions to this general rule as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Ltd.