Karnataka High Court

M/S. Bhavani Sthree Sakthi Mahila Swa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                             -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:6360
                                                      WP No. 3198 of 2024




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 3198 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
                  BETWEEN:

                  1.    M/S. BHAVANI STHREE SAKTHI MAHILA
                        SWA-SAHAYA SANGHA ®,
                        JONNAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
                        BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS
                        MEMBER 1,
                        SMT. UMA W/O
                        AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                        DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110,
                        BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

                  2.    M/S. PRAGHATHISWA-SAHAYA SANGHA ®,
                        KALYANANAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALUR,
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER 1,
Digitally signed by     SMT. SOWMYA R,
PADMAVATHI B K          AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                KALYANA NAGAR, JYOTHI NAGAR POST,
KARNATAKA               CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.

                  3.    M/S. ABHIRUDDHASWASAHAYA SANGHA
                        MUDIGERE TOWN,
                        REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT
                        DHANISHKA,
                        AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                        MUDIGERE TOWN,
                        MUDIGERE - 571 201.
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:6360
                                   WP No. 3198 of 2024




4.   M/S VINAYAKA NIRANTHARAULITHAYA GUMPU ®,
     HALIYUR, ARERAKERI, SHIKARIPURA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
     SMT. LOLAKSHAMMA,
     W/O, SHANTHAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     NO.76, NEAR DURGAMBA TEMPLE,
     SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 427.

5.   M/S SRINIDHISTHREESHAKTHISWA-SAHAYA
     SANGHA ®,
     HUTTHALLIHUNCHADAKATTE POST,
     THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
     RERPESENTED BY ITS MEMBER 1,
     SMT. SHAILAJA,
     W/O VENKATACHALA,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     HUTTHALLIHUNCHADAKATTE POST,
     THIRTHAHALLI TALUK - 577 432.

6.   M/S. SRI. AKKAMAHADEVISTHREE SHAKTHI
     SWAHAYA GROUP
     UDRI, VADDIGERE SORABHA TALUK,
     SHIMOGHA DISTRICT,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER 1,
     SMT. YALLAMMA,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     UDRI, VADDIGERE, SORABHA TALUK,
     SHIMOGHA DISTRICT.

7.   M/S. SRI. MARUTHI STHREE SHATHI KENDRA
     PUUTAIAHANA AGRAHARA,
     DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER 1,
     SMT. SUNANDA D.G.,
     W/O HONNEGOWDA,
                           -3-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:6360
                                       WP No. 3198 of 2024




     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     PUUTAIAHANA AGRAHARA,
     DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203.

8.   M/S. SRI. NETHRAVATHISTHREE SHATHI KENDRA
     MELEKETTHIGANA VILLAGE,
     NELMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL (D),
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER 1,
     SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
     W/O LATE BAIRA HANUMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     MELEKETTHIGANA VILLAGE,
     NELMANGALA TALUK,
     BANGALORE RURAL (D).

9.   M/S. SRI. LAKSHMI STHREE SHATHI KENDRA
     BORIHONNAYYA PALYA, KALARI POST,
     KASABAHOBLI,
     MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA (D) 562159.
     REP. BY ITS MEMBER 1
     SMT, PUSHPALATHA
     W/O DHANANJAYA H,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     MAGADI TALUK
     BORIHONNAIYANA PALYA,
     KALARI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.

10. M/S. SRI. DHANESHWARI MAHILA
    SWA-SAHAYA SANGHA ®,
    REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
    SMT. REKHA P YAKALASPOR
    W/O PARAPPAYAKALASPOR,
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    O/AT NEHRU NAGAR,
    BYADGI, 581 106 DISTRICT HAVERI.
                          -4-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:6360
                                    WP No. 3198 of 2024




11. M/S. DHANESHWARI MAHILA
    SWA-SAHAYA SANGHA ®,
    REPRESENTED BY ITS
    PRESIDENT.
    SMT. SHAILAJA J ANGADI,
    W/O JAGADEVAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
    O/AT SHIVAJINAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
    HAVERI - 581 110,
    HAVERI TALUKA AND DIST.

12. M/S. HINDULIDAVARGAGALA (SC)
    STHREE SHAKTI SWA-SAHAYA,
    REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
    SMT NAGAMMA,
    W/O KRISHNAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
    O/AT PAMPANAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
    HUNCHINAKATTE ROAD,
    TALUKA RANEBENNUR, 581 115,
    DISTRICT HAVERI.

13. M/S. SRI RENUKA NAGAR
    STHREEISAKTHI SANGHA,
    REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
    SMT. GEETHA V SHETTAR,
    W/O VEERENDRA S SHETTAR
    AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
    O/AT MAIN ROAD, OPP.GOVT. HOSPITAL,
    HIREKERUR,
    RANEBENNUR TALUK - 581 111,
    DISTRICT HAVERI.

14. M/S. SRI. HULIGEMMADEVI
    STRI-SHAKTI SANGHA,
    REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
                           -5-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:6360
                                    WP No. 3198 of 2024




     SMT. SARALA JHADHAV,
     W/O VISHNUKANTH JHADHAV,
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     O/AT JHADHAV COMPLEX,
     KOPPARASIKOPPA ,581104
     TQ. HANGAL, DISTRICT HAVERI.

15. M/S. SRI. ANNAPURNESHWARISTHREESHAKTI
    MAHILA SWA-SAHAYA SANGHA,
    REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
    SMT. GOWRAMMA GOULI,
    W/O LATE SHIVAPPA GOULI,
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
    O/AT BHAVANA MATHADA GALLI,
    SHIGGAON, 581205
    DISTRICT HAVERI.

16. M/S. SRI. RENUKADEVISTRI-SHAKTHI
    SWA-SAHAYA SANGHA,
    REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
    SMT. GOWRAMMA U PAWAR,
    W/O UMESH PAEAR,
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
    NEHRU NAGAR, MUNDAGOD,
    U K DISTRICT, PIN 581 349.
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR N HEGDE, AND
    SMT. SARITHA A.L., ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL,
     SECRETARY,
     DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
     DEVELOPMENT AND DISABLED AND SENIOR
                                -6-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:6360
                                          WP No. 3198 of 2024




     CITIZEN, 3RD BLOCK, M.S. BUILDING,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   THE DIRECTOR,
     DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND
     CHILD DEVELOPMENT
     AND DISABLED SENIOR CITIZEN,
     M.S. BUILDING,
     DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
    SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

       THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE
ORDER    DATED    21/10/2023    ISSUED    BY    THE   DIRECTOR,
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU
FILE NO.WCO/ICDS/MSPT/5-2023 COMP NO. 993 642              COPY
OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P AT CLAUSE 12 TO
THE EXTENT IT DIRECTS THE MSPCTS TO TRANSPORT THE
FOOD     ARTICLES     TO    ANGANAWADI          CENTRES     AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE
THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS TO TRANSPORT THE
FOOD ARTICLES TO ANGANAWADI CENTRES AS WAS THERE
HITHERTO AND ETC.

       THIS   PETITION,    COMING    ON    FOR     PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                      -7-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:6360
                                                 WP No. 3198 of 2024




                                 ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

the Government Order dated 21.10.2023 with particular

reference to Clause 12 on the score that it directs the MSPCTs

to transport the food articles to the Anganawadi Centres and

consequently directs the respondents to continue with the

services of the petitioners, who are holding transport licenses

for transporting food articles to those Anganawadi Centres.

2. Heard Sri. Sridhar N. Hegde, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Vikram Huilgol, learned AAG

along with Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned HCGP appearing for the

respondents and have perused the material on record.

3. An identical writ petition was preferred by another

entity similarly situated like that of the petitioners, this comes

to be dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.1.00 lakh.

A subsequent writ petition was again preferred by another

entity similarly situated challenging one of the clauses of the

Government Order dated 21.10.2023. This Court in

W.P.No.24326/2023 dismissed the petition by its order dated

03.11.2023. The order reads as follows:

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

"3. The petitioner is K.R.Pete and Pandavapura Taluks Mahila Supplementary Production Training Centers. The petitioner or the like were before this Court in several writ petitions. One of the petitioners of the kind, who is in the present petition had knocked at the doors of this Court in W.P.No.25975/2022, which comes to be dismissed on 07.02.2023 with imposition of costs of Rs.1/- lakh. The cost was imposed on the petitioner on the score that it has not divulged the earlier writ petitions. The present writ petition also does not suffer from the said vice, but repeated petitions are being filed on the same cause of action.

4. This Court had observed as follows:

"3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

Several petitions were filed before this Court invoking the public interest jurisdiction in writ petition No.3522 of 2022 c/w W.P.Nos.11004 of 2020 & 15767 of 2021. The Division Bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 27.05.2022 while disposing the petitions passed the following order:

"FINDINGS

17. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

18. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing in W.P.No.11004/2020 and W.P.No.15767/2021, the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, whereby the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 respectively are sought to be withdrawn are illegal, arbitrary and vitiated and the same deserve to be quashed for the following reasons:-

(i) The material on record discloses that as per the ICDS scheme as well as the Central Government Norms dated 24.02.2009 and 2017 Rules and directions issued by the Apex Court pertaining to implementation of the scheme, the State government issued an order dated 24.02.2018 which was stayed by this Court. A perusal of the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 as well as the technical committee report dated 19.08.2021, the feasibility for the MSPTCs to tie up with BIS licenced / certified women self help groups such as the petitioners has been recognised, acknowledged and recommended by the State Government bearing in mind the objectives of the scheme, Apex Court directions and the relevant norms / rules. It is therefore clear that the

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 purporting to withdraw the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 are illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be quashed.

(ii) A perusal of the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 clearly indicates that the same are completely unreasoned, non-speaking, cryptic, laconic and arbitrary orders which have been passed unconditionally and unilaterally without assigning any reasons and without any application of mind, thereby being violative and contrary to the principles of natural justice and on this ground also, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

(iii) A perusal of the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 indicates that the same were issued in conformity and pursuant to the National Food Security Act r/w SNP Rules, 2017 as well as the directions issued by the Apex Court regarding implementation of the ICDS scheme which is meant for pregnant women, children, lactating mothers etc., and consequently, withdrawal of the said circular and Government order by passing the impugned orders will substantially delay the implementation of the ICDS scheme in the State of Karnataka and as such, the impugned order deserve to be quashed.

(iv) It is also relevant to state that taking into account larger public interest involved in speedy implementation of the ICDS scheme, of which, pregnant women, children, lactating mothers etc., are the beneficiaries, it was absolutely essential that the circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 are implemented and given effect to at the earliest without any delay and under these circumstances, issuance of the impugned orders seeking to withdraw the said circular and order will cause great prejudice and hardship to the beneficiaries of the ICDS scheme and consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed on this ground also.

(v) Insofar as the defence of the State Government that the impugned orders were passed since the circular dated 02.07.2020 and the Government order dated 05.05.2021 were contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court and failure on the part of the women self help groups to comply with the requirements of the said circular and order is concerned, it is significant to note that the said circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 indicate that all relevant and material facts including the directions of the Apex Court, the objectives sought to be achieved by the ICDS scheme, earlier government orders, notifications, rules, norms etc., have been considered and taken into account

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

while issuing the said circular and order and consequently, the said contention of the respondents - State is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

(vi) Insofar as the contention of the respondents - State that the women self help groups have not complied with the terms and conditions of the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 is concerned, the material on record discloses that as directed by this Court, the petitioners have filed affidavits along with documents which indicate that all the terms and conditions prescribed in the said circular and order have been fulfilled and complied with by the petitioners and as such, the said contention urged by the respondents - State is also liable to be rejected.

(vii) The respondents have completely failed to substantiate that the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 were contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

(viii) Insofar as the contention advanced by the respondents - State that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act enables them to withdraw the circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021, having regard to the peculiar and special facts and circumstances of the instant case including the aims and objects of the ICDS scheme, directions issued by the Apex Court and other proceedings, orders etc., prior to issuance of the same, respondents were not entitled to unilaterally and unconditionally issue the impugned orders under Section 21, which does not confer unfettered or unbridled powers on the State Government to withdraw its earlier order dated 05.05.2021, that too within a period of fifteen days and as such, even this contention of the respondents is liable to be rejected. It is well settled that exercise of power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is circumscribed, limited and restricted by the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances including the instant circular / order sought to be withdrawn and in the facts of the case on hand, particularly having regard to the ICDS scheme which is beneficial in nature, effective and speedy implementation of the scheme was absolutely essential and consequently, the impugned orders are vitiated on this ground also.

(ix) The material on record also reveals that the already miserable situation and condition of the beneficiaries of the ICDS scheme had substantially and considerably deteriorated and worsened on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and on this charge also, the respondents were not justified in passing the impugned orders, which deserve to be quashed on this ground also.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

(x) It is also significant to state that one M/s.Shri. Sharadamba Foods had preferred W.P.No.580/2020 seeking quashing of the circular dated 02.07.2020 and for other reliefs. The said petition having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2020, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.580/2020 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 21.01.2021. It is therefore clear that the legality, validity and correctness of the said circular dated 02.07.2020 has been upheld by this Court and the same has attained finality and become conclusive and consequently, this circumstance also indicates that the impugned order dated 15.05.2021 seeking to withdraw the said circular dated 02.07.2020 is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.

(xi) As stated supra, W.P.No.3522/2022 is a PIL which was preferred on 14.02.2022 seeking several directions for implementation of the ICDS Scheme. In this context, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 which proceed on the basis that some of the women self help groups do not meet the eligibility criteria or the conditions in the circular dated 02.07.2020 or order dated 05.05.2021 would not be a ground to repeal the entire frame work and consequently, the impugned orders would not only be disproportionate but also irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same deserves to be quashed on this ground also.

(xii) So also, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the power of the State Government under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is circumscribed, restricted and limited by the constitutional provisions, in particular, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; in this context, it is significant to note that consequent upon issuance of the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, the circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 are sought to be withdrawn, thereby denying more than 50 lakhs beneficiaries in Karnataka, the right to nutritious food, particularly to pregnant women, lactating mothers and children whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated and on this score also, the impugned orders being arbitrary and capricious under Article 14 of the Constitution of India deserve to be quashed in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Shayara Bano vs. Union of India1 and Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India & others2.

(2017) 9 SCC 1

W.P.(Civil) 1039 / 2020 (PIL)

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

(xiii) It is needless to state that upon quashment of the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, the earlier circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 which have been referred to in the technical committee report dated 19.08.2021 would stand revived and the same would necessarily have to be implemented and given effect to by the State Government. Under these circumstances, though several directions are sought for by the petitioner in this petition, in view of the quashment of the impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, this petition deserves to be allowed directing the respondents - State to give effect to and implement the circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 in the light of the report of the technical committee dated 19.08.2021 by taking necessary steps forthwith in this regard immediately without any further delay.

19. In the result, we pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) All the writ petitions are hereby allowed;

(ii) The impugned Government orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 passed by the respondents - State are hereby quashed.

(iii) The respondents - State are directed to forthwith implement and give effect to the circular dated 02.07.2020 and Government order dated 05.05.2021 issued and passed by the State Government immediately without any further delay.

(iv) The State Government is also directed to take necessary steps to forthwith implement and give effect to the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS Scheme) immediately without any further delay, bearing in mind the Central Government Norms dated 24.02.2009 and Rules dated 06.10.2017 and in the light of the report of the technical committee dated 19.08.2021 as well as all other applicable Government Rules, Regulations, Norms, Orders, Circulars etc., in this regard.

(v) It is directed that the supply of food products, without following specifications and standards as per Revised Nutrition and Feeding Norms shall be suspended with immediate effect and supply of quality nutrition as per Government order dated 05.05.2021 and circular dated 02.07.2020 shall be ensured by the

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

respondents, by executing the agreements as specified in the Government order dated 05.05.2021.

(vi) In order to ensure uninterrupted quality supply of the menu of food items, the respondents are directed that, if the parties of the contract (Agreements) as per Government order 05.05.2021 fail to perform their obligation, the final products as specified in the contract (Agreements) shall be procured at a competitive rate from any eligible entities as specified vide circular dated 02.07.2020 and supply the same to Anganawadi Centres in the interest of the beneficiaries.

(vii) The State Government is directed to submit a compliance report to this Court within a period of three months from today.

(viii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.3522/2022 (PIL) to seek revival of the said petition, if the occasion so arises."

(Emphasis supplied)

After disposal of the writ petitions, a review petition is preferred by the petitioners in Review Petition No.550 of 2022 seeking review of the afore-quoted order. The Division Bench by a detailed order, again dismisses the Review Petition. Another Review Petition is preferred in Review Petition No.575 of 2022, which also comes to be dismissed. All of those were carried to the Apex Court in SLP No.18930 of 2022. The Apex Court rejects the Special Leave Petition by the following order:

"UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted.

       Having    heard    learned    counsel
appearing    for   the   petitioner(s)  and

considering the earlier judgment and order passed this Court and having considered and gone through the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order(s), no case for interference by this

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

(Emphasis supplied)

By the date the SLP comes to be dismissed, the State Government had issued a Government order on 17.08.2022 in implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench (supra). Owning to certain discrepancy in the said order, a second Government Order is issued on 22.08.2022 quoting the judgment of the Division Bench. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the said Government Order issued on 22.08.2022.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would vehemently contend that a particular clause of the circular dated 02.07.2020 is violated and therefore, it has a right to prefer the present writ petition as it runs counter to the order passed by the Division Bench in writ petition No.3522 of 2022 and connected cases. Owing to the submissions so made, this Court had granted an interim order of stay, which reads as follows:

"Learned AGA seeks two weeks' time to file statement of objections.

Two weeks' time is granted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents are insisting an execution of Memorandum of Understanding, contrary to the earlier orders passed by this Court. Therefore, the parties shall maintain status-quo as on this day till the next date of hearing."

5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Smt.Lakshmi Iyengar representing the impleading applicants would take this Court through the application seeking impleadment and the documents appended thereof to demonstrate that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and the orders passed by this Court, as there is no whisper in the writ petition about the orders passed in review petition by the very same learned counsel who has now filed the present petition. She would submit that without going into the

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

merit of the matter, the petition has to be dismissed on such suppression.

6. Without prejudice to the said contention, the learned senior counsel would take this Court through the orders passed by the Division Bench which directs implementation of the circular dated 02.07.2020, in its form and sets a timeline for such implementation. She would submit that it is in terms of the direction so issued by the Court. The Government Order dated 22.08.2022 has been brought into effect, what is challenged is an order that is issued/notified pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench (supra). All the other counsel would toe the lines of the learned senior counsel.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and other respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated orders passed are a matter of record The judgment of the Division Bench dated 27.05.2022 is as quoted (supra). The Division Bench clearly directed at clause (xiii) that in view of quashment of the impugned orders dated 15.5.2021 and 20.05.2021, the earlier circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021 would get revived. Further the Division Bench directs that the State is to give effect to and implement the circular dated 02.07.2020 and the order dated 05.05.2021. Against the said order, several of the petitioners preferred review petition in review petition No.550 of 2022. The Division Bench passes the following order:

".... .... ....

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that its interest is affected by the directions issued in our aforesaid order, wherein this Court directed the respondents to implement the Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 and also Government Order dated 05.05.2021. It is submitted that the aforesaid directions issued by this Court is an error apparent on the face of the record and though the present review petitioner was not a party to the aforesaid proceedings / order, since its interest is affected by the directions issued by this Court directing the respondents to implement the Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 as well as Government Order dated 05.05.2021, the review petitioner is before this Court by way of the present review petition.

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

3. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents, who appeared for the writ petitioners in W.P.No.3522/2022 & connected matters, submit that aggrieved by the aforesaid Government Circular dated 02.07.2020, the review petitioner had already preferred W.P.No.8799/2020 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2020 and the same was confirmed in an appeal in W.A.No.580/2020 dated 21.01.2021 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the review petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

5. The review petitioner has produced at Annexure-G, copy of the order dated 24.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.8799/2020, whereby the aforesaid petition filed by the review petitioner seeking quashing of the aforesaid Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 was dismissed by this Court; at Annexure-H, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal in W.A.No.580/2020 vide order dated 21.01.2021, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid orders passed by this Court rejecting the challenge to the Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 qua the review petitioner have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the review petitioner who is not entitled to circumvent the same and seek to challenge the impugned order passed by this Court under the guise of the present review petition, which is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

6. It is also relevant to state that all aspects in relation to the legality, validity and correctness of the Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 as well as Government Order dated 05.05.2021 have been considered and appreciated extensively by this Court in the impugned order, which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, much less any error or mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court and on this ground also, having regard to the extremely limited / restricted scope of review petition as held by the Apex Court in several judgments including the case of Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat - Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this review petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

7. Accordingly, the review petition is hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of review petition, I.A.2/022 does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)

Another review petition in Review Petition No.575 of 2022 is preferred by another MSPTC to which the learned counsel for petitioner now representing, had represented. The review petition is rejected by the following order:

"Sri. Manjunath Rao Bhonsle, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned AGA for the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9.

2. The order dated 27.05.2022 passed in W.P.No.3522/2022 along with W.P.No.11004/2020 and W.P.No.15767/2021 neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmities nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the review petition.

3. In the result, the review petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)

This is tossed before the Apex Court in SLP No.18930 of 2022 and the order in SLP is quoted (supra). Except stating about the disposal of the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner does not whisper anything about the orders in the review petitions and those orders having attained finality before the Apex Court in rejecting the SLPs. It is not a dismissal of the SLP in limine, but by a reasoned order. Therefore, the orders have been affirmed by the Apex Court. The affirmation of the order leads to modification of the impugned Government Order which the petitioner now seeks to challenge without divulging anything about the review petition being preferred or the SLP getting rejected affirming the said orders."

The afore-quoted order captures the entire gamut of the litigation that went into prior to the State Government notifying the government orders, which are now made subject of challenge in this petition. The government orders issued by the respective departments

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6360

dated 21.10.2023 and 31.10.2023 are therefore, in tune with the order passed by this Court dated 27.05.2022 and that of the Apex Court dated 18.07.2022. Therefore, the government orders or the circular which seeks to implement the judgment of the Division Bench as affirmed by the Apex Court, is unentertainable.

5. Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Additional Advocate General would also take this Court through the National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act'), with particular reference to sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act, which creates an obligation on the part of the government to provide food grains in terms of the Act. This submission also merits acceptance as it forms a part of statutory obligation.

6. Insofar as prayer (c) is concerned, it is open for the Central Government or the State Government to work out the feasibility, in case need arises.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.

Ordered accordingly.

No costs."

4. It transpires that the order was tossed before the

Division Bench in W.A.No.1417/2023, which also comes to be

dismissed by an order of the Division Bench dated 29.11.2023

thereby affirming the findings rendered in W.P.No.24326/2023.

The petitioners then calls that in question before the Apex

Court in SLP No.1060/2024, which also comes to be dismissed.

5. Now comes another petition by another entity

challenging another clause of the Government Order dated

- 19 -