Chattisgarh High Court
Maa Banjari Swa Sahayata Samuh, ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Writ Petition (Civil) No.5063 of 2021
Maa Santoshi Swa Sahayata Samuh Versus The Union of India and Others
Along with
Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 192/2022, 455/2022, 5326/2021, 5331/2021, 569/2022,
5373/2021, 5386/2021, 5300/2021, 5271/2021, 386/2022, 618/2022, 622/2022,
350/2022, 5470/2021, 5501/2021, 5457/2021, 312/2022, 5474/2021, 196/2022,
5358/2021, 5381/2021, 159/2022, 403/2022, 5132/2021, 5162/2021, 356/2022,
4989/2021, 5183/2021, 4998/2021, 5317/2021, 5475/2021, 548/2022,
5357/2021, 229/2022, 5396/2021, 5534/2021, 231/2022, 41/2022, 10/2022,
5536/2021, 5147/2021, 516/2022, 335/2022, 245/2022, 51/2022, 246/2022,
5440/2021, 900/2022, 5284/2021, 5506/2021, 5430/2021, 619/2022, 234/2022,
5283/2021, 58/2022, 5520/2021, 5002/2021, 5420/2021, 5452/2021,
5208/2021, 5435/2021, 5213/2021, 5353/2021, 5156/2021, 5146/2021,
121/2022, 620/2022, 5519/2021, 5499/2021, 5328/2021, 184/2022, 66/2022,
5228/2021, 5272/2021, 5289/2021, 5299/2021, 5508/2021, 189/2022,
5267/2021, 5434/2021, 5525/2021, 5532/2021, 5279/2021, 5366/2021,
375/2022, 611/2022, 361/2022, 5472/2021, 567/2022, 5402/2021, 4945/2021,
5294/2021, 5334/2021, 5154/2021, 129/2022, 5449/2021, 5488/2021,
5510/2021, 5392/2021, 5277/2021, 137/2022, 156/2022, 5258/2021,
5458/2021, 5314/2021, 8/2022, 5184/2021, 5422/2021, 5436/2021, 5518/2021,
172/2022, 5164/2021, 5278/2021, 5352/2021, 5092/2021, 5142/2021,
5227/2021, 5320/2021, 64/2022, 5082/2021, 5404/2021, 5384/2021,
5535/2021, 134/2022, 5121/2021, 5459/2021, 5394/2021, 28/2022, 5191/2021,
5307/2021, 69/2022, 240/2022, 330/2022, 306/2022, 5509/2021, 5517/2021,
352/2022, 237/2022, 59/2022, 5274/2021, 5291/2021, 5342/2021, 376/2022,
5464/2021, 36/2022, 5117/2021, 5101/2021, 5036/2021, 5079/2021,
5433/2021, 5108/2021, 45/2022, 5181/2021, 5230/2021, 5478/2021,
5350/2021, 372/2022, 136/2022, 191/2022, 486/2022, 98/2022, 5484/2021,
5145/2021, 326/2022, 47/2022, 345/2022, 5316/2021, 169/2022, 120/2022,
153/2022, 5492/2021, 308/2022, 5383/2021, 5148/2021, 5231/2021,
5286/2021, 219/2022, 5324/2021, 5128/2021, 109/2022, 173/2022, 5199/2021,
5371/2021, 5441/2021, 5237/2021, 35/2022, 70/2022, 5280/2021, 5431/2021,
1/2022, 164/2022, 5325/2021, 5339/2021, 5483/2021, 5356/2021, 5359/2021,
5153/2021, 5182/2021, 5345/2021, 5446/2021, 5304/2021, 197/2022,
5003/2021, 5139/2021, 5321/2021, 5363/2021, 5382/2021, 5273/2021,
546/2022, 5385/2021, 133/2022, 194/2022, 5262/2021, 5476/2021, 4980/2021,
5473/2021, 5110/2021, 5219/2021, 61/2022, 5318/2021, 111/2022, 5417/2021,
5112/2021, 377/2022, 5355/2021, 5526/2021, 5242/2021, 5259/2021,
5268/2021, 4981/2021, 5308/2021, 43/2022, 79/2022, 157/2022, 5428/2021,
5467/2021, 5264/2021, 5008/2021, 5301/2021, 456/2022, 83/2022, 155/2022,
5161/2021, 353/2022, 5282/2021, 5391/2021, 5471/2021, 5482/2021,
5313/2021, 290/2022, 388/2022, 125/2022, 5163/2021, 5136/2021, 5315/2021,
370/2022, 5456/2021, 5120/2021, 5454/2021, 5137/2021, 118/2022, 193/2022,
5188/2021, 5490/2021, 116/2022, 74/2022, 5290/2021, 5200/2021, 6/2022,
626/2022, 46/2022, 227/2022, 5155/2021, 5377/2021, 5178/2021, 5221/2021,
5257/2021, 5400/2021, 166/2022, 5073/2021, 5376/2021, 5415/2021
01/04/2022
Mr. Collin Gonsalves, Mr. Rajesh Pandey and Mr. Govind Ram
Miri, Sr. Advocates along with Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Mr.
Rakesh Pandey, Mr. Mateen Siddiqui with Mr. Anadi Sharma,
Advocates, Mr. T. K. Jha, Mr. B.D. Guru, Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Kesharwani, Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Mr. A.N.
Pandey, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Mr. Anuroop Panda, Mr. Rahul
Mishra, Mr. Vikash K. Pandey, Mr. Vikash Dubey, Mr. Anukul Viswas,
Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Mr.
Abdul Wahab Khan, Mr. S.S. Baghel, Mr. Sunil Sahu, Mr. Adhiraj
Surana, Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Mr. Vivek Singhal, Mr. Keshav
Prasad Gupta, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Mr. Prateek
Singh Thakur, Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Mr. Saket Pandey, Mr. Somkant
Verma, Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Mr. Ritesh
Verma, Mr. Somnath Verma, Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Mr. Ajay Kumar
Barik, Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Ms. Astha
Sharma, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Soumya Sharma, Mr. Siddharth
Rathore, Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. Manish Nigam, Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Mr.
Tarun Dansena, Mr. Ishan Verma and Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Mr. Avinash
Singh, Advocates for the respective petitioners.
Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate General, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava,
Addl. A.G., Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Mr. Rahul Jha, Mr. Gagan Tiwari, G.A., Ms.
Akanksha Jain, Ms. Priyambada Singh, Deputy G.A. and Mr. Pawan
Kesharwani, Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Mr.
Aditya Bhardwaj, Mr. P. Acharya, Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Mr. Aditya
Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Asst.S.G. with Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Mr.
Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Mr. Tushar Dhar
Diwan, Mr. Bhupendra Singh and Ms. Supriya Upasane, Mr. Sumit Singh,
Mr. Sukhnath Sai Painkra, Mr. Manoj Mishra along with Mr. Kishan Lal
Sahu, Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Mr. Roop Naik, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel,
Mr. Palash Tiwari, Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Ms.
Anmol Sharma, Ms. Anuja Sharma, Ms. Ayushi Agrawal, Mr. Shikhar
Sharma, Mr. Rohitashva, Mr. Abhishek Gupta and Mr. Abhishek Chandra
Gupta, Advocates for Union of India.
Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Animesh
Tiwari, Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocates for the respondent- Rajya Beej
Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Mr. Akhand Pratap,
Advocates for their respective respondent/intervener.
Heard the arguments in part.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Collin Gonsalves submits that this
Court has pleased to pass the order of status-quo by order dated
31.03.2022, therefore, the respondents authorities be directed to issue
indent to the petitioners SHGs for supply of take home rations so that
the beneficiaries of ICDS scheme continue to be benefited during the
pendency of this case.
Learned Advocate General vehemently opposes the submissions
and submits that the respondent - Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi
Vikas Nigam Ltd. is ready with the preparations and the arguments will
be completed in another 4-5 days, therefore, the matter may be put off
for 4-5 days. It is also submitted that the contract period of most of the
SHGs have expired, therefore, in such a case, it is only the respondent
- Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, which should be
directed to step in.
Learned Senior Counsel Shri Ravindra Shrivastava for
respondent Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited submits that
the status-quo order is going to affect the beneficiaries, therefore, some
interim arrangement is required to be made. The respondent- Rajya
Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited is prepared to supply THRs,
therefore, the respondent - Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam
Limited be permitted to make supply, on which basis the respondent -
Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited shall not claim any right in
the future.
In reply, it is submitted by Mr. Gonsalves that SHGs have been
doing the work for past 15 years by allowing the respondent - Rajya
Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited for making supply, would be
against the status-quo order passed by this Court. Therefore, the
respondent authorities be directed to issue indent to SHGs for supply of
THR at the earliest. It is also submitted that although the contract period
of some of the SHGs have expired, but there had been an arrangement
made between concerned SHGs and the State and the contract was
extended time to time and in the latest contract was extended up till
May, 2022.
Considered on the submissions. The statement of the learned
Advocate General has to be taken into consideration that the contract
period of most of the SHGs have expired. On the basis of the
submissions made by Mr. Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate, situation is this
that the contract in favour of some of the SHGs may be continuing on
the basis of the arrangements that were made between them and the
State in the past. The status-quo has to be implemented in the letter
and spirit. Keeping in view the beneficiaries that they should not be
deprived of benefits of ICDS scheme during the period in which the
arguments shall take place and then some time may be required for the
Court to deliver a judgment, therefore, by way of modification in the
order dated 31.03.2022, it is ordered that the respondent -State
authorities shall continue with the arrangements which was present with
the respective SHGs until 31.03.2022 and also where it is continuing in
the case of SHGs whose contract period has not expired until
31.03.2022. This status quo shall continue until 30.04.2022 or the date
on which judgment is delivered in this case, whichever may be earlier.
List this case on 5th of April, 2022 for further arguments.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Balram
