[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Uma Maheswar Wshg vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 19 December, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22272/2025,
W.P.(C) No.23182/2025,
W.P.(C) No.23215/2025,
W.P.(C) No.23274/2025,
W.P.(C) No.23278/2025,
W.P.(C) No.23289/2025,
W.P.(C) No.23296/2025,
W.P.(C) No.23496/2025,
W.P.(C) No.28851/2025,
W.P.(C) No.32549/2025,
W.P.(C) No.32954/2025,
W.P.(C) No.32959/2025, and
W.P.(C) No. 32962/2025
(Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
A.F.R. W.P.(C) No. 22272/2025
Uma Maheswar WSHG ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23182/2025
Maa Biraja Women Self Help Group ... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23215 / 2025
Mahalaxmi Shaktidal Self Help Group ... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23274 / 2025
Maa Bhabani Self Help Group, Bankipali,
Subarnapur ... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Page 1 of 19
W.P.(C) No. 23278 / 2025
Samaleswari Self Help Group, Digsira,
Subarnapur ... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23289 / 2025
Laxmi Narayan Women Self Help Group,
Chinajuri, Subarnapur ... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23296 / 2025
Aparna Self Helf Group, Subarnapur ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23496 / 2025
Baba Sidheswar WSHG & Ors ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 28851 / 2025
Jay Hanuman Self Help Group,
Subarnapur .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 32549 / 2025
Jay Hanuman Self Help Group,
Subarnapur ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Page 2 of 19
W.P.(C) No. 32954 / 2025
Maa Mauli Self Help Group,
Subarnapur ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 32959 / 2025
Subarnagrahi Self Help Group,
Subarnapur ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 32962 / 2025
Biswanarayani Self Help Group,
Subarnapur ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner(s) : M/s. Srinivas Mohanty, K. Patra,
S.R. Mohanty & E. Dash, Advocates
[In W.P.(C) Nos.22272 & 23496 of 2025
M/s. Sarada Dash, Sumant Bhuyan,
Asit Kumar Nayak, Srikhetra Mishra
[in W.P.(C) Nos.23182, 23215, 23274,
23278, 23289 & 23296 of 2025]
M/s. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, T. Pradhan
A.Mohanty, M.Mohanty, Advocates
[ In W.P.(C) Nos. 28851, 32549, 32954,
32959 & 32962 of 2025]
Page 3 of 19
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Addl. Govt. Advocate
M/s. Banshidhar Satapathy, & S.S.
Samantaray, Advocates
[For Intervenor in W.P.(C) Nos.22272
of 2025]
M/s. Manoj Kumar Mohanty,
M.Mohanty, S.D. Pattanaik, T. Pradhan
A.Mohanty T.M.Rout, Advocates
[For Intervenor in W.P.(C) Nos.22272,
23496 of 2025]
M/s. Durga Prasana Das, Prabudha
Kumar Pattanaik, Advocates
(For OP-3 in W.P.(C) No. 23496 of 2025)
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
19 December 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. All these writ petitions involve common
facts and being heard together, are disposed of by this
common judgment.
Case of the Petitioners
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the
petitioners is as follows-
2.1 The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 22272 of 2025,
23182 of 2025, 23215 of 2025, 23274 of 2025, 23278 of 2025,
23289 of 2025, 23296 of 2025 and 23496 of 2025 are
Women's Self Help Groups (WSHGs) who claim to have been
duly selected for procurement of paddy pursuant to the
Guidelines issued in the year 2019 through an open invitation
of Expression of Interest (EOI), for various Blocks in the
district of Subarnapur. Upon such selection, they were
engaged in Kharif paddy and Rabi crop procurement
operations for the last four years on behalf of the State
Government through its agency, namely, the Odisha State
Civil Supplies Corporation (OSCSC). In the present cases, they
challenge their exclusion in the paddy procurement exercise
being conducted for the current year (2025-26) without
assignment of any reason and by restricting procurement
activities exclusively to PACS, and consequentially, seek
quashing of the orders dated 16.07.2025 passed by the
Collector, Subarnapur, inviting 20 SHGs to make farmer
registration for KMS 2025-26, and the order dated 22.07.2025
passed by the Collector, Subarnapur, intimating that, for
smooth and hassle-free procurement of paddy during KMS
2025-26, the registration of farmers will exclusively be done by
all PACS.
2.2 The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23881 of 2025 is also a
Women's Self Help Group, which was selected in the year 2024
pursuant to an invitation for Expression of Interest issued for
engagement as agent of OSCSC for Kharif Paddy Procurement,
2024-25, for Kadodar Gram Panchayat under Ulunda Block.
Such selection was made owing to alleged mismanagement on
the part of the Uma Maheswar SHG (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.
22272 of 2025), resulting in replacement and appointment of
the present petitioner group. The petitioner similarly
challenges its subsequent exclusion without assignment of
reasons and the restriction of procurement activities
exclusively in favour of PACS, and seeks quashing of the
aforementioned orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025.
2.3 The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 32549 of 2025,
32954 of 2025, 32959 of 2025 and 32962 of 2025 are also
Women's Self Help Groups, who challenge the inaction of
Opposite Party No. 2 in not issuing a fresh invitation of
Expression of Interest as well as the orders dated 16.07.2025
and 22.07.2025, whereby they have been debarred from
participating in paddy procurement for the KMS 2025-26,
despite their willingness to participate and though they were
not previously engaged in the procurement process except the
Petitioner in WPC No. 32549 of 2025.
Stand of the Opposite Party No.2
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by Opposite Party
No. 2 in W.P.(C) Nos. 22272 of 2025 and 23496 of 2025, which
has been adopted in all the connected writ petitions. The stand
of Opposite Party No. 2 is that since the initiation of the 2019
Guidelines, the Women's Self Help Groups selected thereunder
were allowed to continue uninterruptedly till the year 2024,
and no fresh Expressions of Interest were issued during the
period 2019 to 2024.
3.1 It is further stated that on 12.07.2024, the
Government in the Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare
Department took a decision to review the performance of the
Women's Self Help Groups that had been continuously
engaged in paddy procurement since 2019. Pursuant to the
said decision, a performance assessment of the WSHGs was
undertaken across all Blocks of the District of Subarnapur.
Thereafter, in a Sub-Division Level Meeting held on
14.11.2024, it was found that in several Blocks, instances of
mismanagement by certain WSHGs had occurred, including,
inter alia, issues relating to registration irregularities,
inadequate management of Paddy Procurement Centres
(PPCs), lack of infrastructure in mandis, delay in transfer of
Minimum Support Price (MSP) to farmers, non-cooperation
with Government officials, irregular conduct of SOLPC
meetings, lack of awareness among farmers regarding MSP
and FAQ norms, non-completion of OPLS satellite land surveys
within the stipulated time, non-clearance of error accounts
resulting in delay of MSP payments, improper maintenance of
records, and non-adherence to the five golden principles of
WSHGs, etc.
3.2 Consequently, for ensuring smooth procurement of
paddy, safeguarding the interests of farmers, and for proper
implementation of the Government's food grain procurement
policy, the Committee recommended rearrangement and
replacement of certain WSHGs/Federations for engagement as
agents of OSCSC for Kharif Paddy Procurement, 2024-25, in
specific areas, namely, certain Gram Panchayats, in place of
the existing WSHGs.
Submissions
4. Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing
for the Petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 22272 & 23496 of 2025, Mr.
S. Dash learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in WP(C)
Nos. 23182, 23215, 23274, 23278, 23289 and 23296 of 2025,
Mr. M.K Mohanty learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.23881, 32549, 32954, 32959 and
32962 of 2025 and Mr. S.N Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State.
5. Mr. S. Mohanty would argue that the petitioners,
having been duly selected pursuant to the 2019 Guidelines
through an open Expression of Interest, were allowed to
function satisfactorily for several consecutive years and,
therefore, could not have been suddenly excluded without any
reasoned order or prior notice. He also submits that the
performance review allegedly undertaken by the State in July-
November 2024 was neither transparent nor objective. It was
contended that the petitioners were never informed of the
parameters of assessment, nor were they given any
opportunity to explain or rectify the alleged deficiencies. The
findings recorded in the Sub-Division Level Meeting dated
14.11.2024 were assailed as vague, generalised and
unsupported by specific material by him. It was also
contended by him that disengagement of the petitioners
without issuance of any show-cause notice or grant of
opportunity of hearing amounts to gross violation of the
principles of natural justice, particularly when such
disengagement results in exclusion from future procurement
activities.
6. Mr. S. Dash adopts the submissions made by Mr.
S. Mohanty.
7. Mr. M.K. Mohanty would argue that the 2019
Guidelines contemplates issuance of Expression of Interest
and the failure of the State to issue fresh EOIs from 2019 to
2024, while allowing the same set of agencies to continue, is
contrary to the policy framework and defeats the object of
transparency and equal opportunity. According to Mr.
Mohanty, such continuation of selected entities for years
together without opening the field to competition amounts to
discrimination and confers an unfair monopoly. He further
submits that the action of the State in restricting procurement
activities exclusively in favour of PACS, while excluding
WSHGs, is arbitrary and contrary to the very object of the
2019 Guidelines, which were framed with the aim of
empowering Women's Self Help Groups and ensuring their
participation in public procurement. Such exclusion,
according to the petitioners, defeats the goal of inclusive
growth and women empowerment. He also submits that non-
issuance of a fresh Expression of Interest for KMS 2025-26, is
contrary to the Guidelines and hence, arbitrary as it has
unfairly deprived eligible WSHGs of an opportunity to
participate. He argues that the willingness of the petitioners to
participate, along with the absence of any subsisting
contractual arrangement in their favour, entitled them at least
to a fair consideration through an open selection process.
8. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik would argue that no legal or
enforceable right of the petitioners has been infringed so as to
warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It was contended that engagement of WSHGs as
procurement agents under the 2019 Guidelines is purely
policy-driven and administrative in nature, and does not
confer any vested or perpetual right to continue in such
engagement. He would further submit that the continuation of
the petitioners from 2019 till 2024 was only by way of
administrative arrangement, and not as a matter of right. The
State, in its wisdom, was entitled to review the functioning and
performance of the WSHGs in larger public interest,
particularly when serious complaints were received regarding
mismanagement in paddy procurement affecting farmers and
timely MSP payments.
8.1. It was further argued that the policy decision dated
12.07.2024 to undertake performance assessment of WSHGs
was taken at the highest level of the Government and
pursuant thereto, an objective evaluation was conducted
across the district. The findings recorded in the Sub-Division
Level Meeting dated 14.11.2024 were based on ground-level
reports of field functionaries and reflected systemic
deficiencies on the part of several WSHGs, which necessitated
immediate administrative intervention to ensure smooth
procurement operations.
8.2. He also submits that paddy procurement is a time-
bound and sensitive activity involving food security and
livelihood of farmers, and therefore, the principles of natural
justice cannot be applied in a straitjacketed manner.
According to him, issuance of individual show-cause notices
and conduct of hearings would have delayed the procurement
process, adversely impacting public interest. In such
circumstances, the State was justified in taking prompt
corrective measures.
8.3. With regard to non-issuance of fresh Expression of
Interest for KMS 2025-26, Mr. Patnaik submits that issuance
of EOI is not mandatory in all circumstances and the
Guidelines do not create an indefeasible right in favour of any
WSHG to demand issuance of EOI. The State, depending upon
administrative exigencies and policy priorities, is competent to
adopt alternative mechanisms for engagement of procurement
agencies.
Analysis and Findings
9. This Court has heard learned counsel for both
parties and examined the pleadings, documents placed on
record and the policy governing engagement of Women's Self
Help Groups (WSHGs) in paddy and Rabi crop procurement.
10. It cannot be disputed that the engagement of
WSHGs under the 2019 Guidelines is administrative and a
matter of policy-of the State. The Guidelines contemplate
issuance of Expression of Interest (EOI). Such stipulation
cannot however be read as conferring any statutory or vested
right either upon the existing WSHGs to continue indefinitely
or upon new aspirants to insist upon issuance of EOIs as a
matter of right. The Guidelines are executive instructions
framed to facilitate effective procurement and necessarily
permit a degree of administrative flexibility.
11. The materials on record disclose that from 2019 to
2024, the State consistently followed the practice of continuing
the already selected WSHGs and did not issue fresh EOIs
during the said period. Such continuation was uniform and
not shown to be selective or discriminatory. Significantly, this
decision was never challenged by any person/group. Mere
deviation from a procedural prescription in an executive
guideline, in the absence of demonstrable arbitrariness,
malafides or violation of statutory provisions does not in the
considered view of this Court, render the action of the State
illegal.
12. The decision dated 12.07.2024 to undertake a
performance review of WSHGs that had been continuously
engaged since 2019 was a policy decision taken in public
interest, aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability and
efficiency in procurement of food grains. Pursuant thereto, a
district-wide assessment was undertaken in all Blocks of
Subarnapur. The petitioners have failed to establish that such
assessment was conducted on extraneous considerations or in
a manner lacking objectivity. Moreover, said decision was also
not challenged within a reasonable time.
13. The record of the meeting held on 14.11.2024
reveals that the Government adopted a principle whereby,
WSHGs having satisfactory track record were permitted to
continue, PACS were preferred where necessary, and EOIs
were issued only in those areas where mismanagement was
reported. Such classification based on performance has a
direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely,
smooth and efficient procurement, and therefore, in the
considered view of this Court, does not violate Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
14. The grievance of the petitioners that their
disengagement is vitiated for want of prior notice and
opportunity of hearing has also not been considered by the
Opposite Party No.2. It is well settled that the principles of
natural justice are not rigid or inflexible and their application
depends upon the nature of the right involved and the
consequences flowing from the decision. In the present case,
engagement of the WSHGs was purely contractual and policy-
based, subject to review of performance. Continuation from
year to year did not confer any indefeasible right to remain
engaged indefinitely. In this regard, reference may be made to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarat Kumar Dash v.
Biswajit Patnaik1, wherein it has been held that-
"11. The next question is whether omission to record
reasons amounts to violation of the principles of natural
justice. The principle of audi alteram partem is a basic
concept of the principle of natural justice. The
omnipotency inherent in the doctrine is that no one
should be condemned without being heard or given an
opportunity to the person affected to present his case
before taking the decision or action. In the field of
administrative action, this principle has been applied to
ensure fair play and justice to the affected person.
However, the doctrine is not a cure to all the ills in the
process. Its application depends upon the factual matrix
to improve administrative efficiency and expediency and
to meet out justice. The procedure adopted would be just
and fair. The reasons are links between maker of the
order or the author of the decision and the order itself.
The record is called to consider whether he has given
due consideration to the facts placed before him before
he arrives at the decision. Therefore, the reasons in the
order or found from the record bridges the link between
the maker of the order and the order itself or decision.
Therefore the natural justice is not a rigid nor an
inflexible rule. It should be applied to a given fact
situation, depending upon the background of the
statutory provisions, nature of the right which may be
affected and the consequences that may entail. It is
already seen that the Commission evolved the objective
criteria in awarding marks to the given grading of the
candidates and on its basis recommended their cases
for promotion. In R.S. Dass case [1986 Supp SCC 617 :
(1987) 2 ATC 628] this Court held that the grading itself
is a reason and no separate reasons in that behalf in
arranging the order of merit need be given. The grading
is to obviate the need to record reasons. The finding of
the Tribunal that the selection by PSC without recording
reasons or need to record separately the reasons for
evolving the criteria for selection is also clearly illegal."
[Emphasis Added]
15. The disengagement of certain WSHGs does not
appear to be by way of a penal action or stigmatic, but the
1995 Supp (1) SCC 434
outcome of a general policy decision based on a district-wide
performance evaluation. The assessment relied upon
contemporaneous records relating to procurement operations,
in which the petitioners themselves were participants. No
blacklisting, debarment or civil disability has been imposed
upon them. In such circumstances, insistence on individual
show-cause notices or personal hearings cannot be treated as
mandatory.
16. This Court also takes note of the fact that the
disengagement was accompanied by issuance of EOIs in the
concerned areas, which demonstrates that the action was
corrective and administrative, rather than punitive. In the
absence of any material to show malafides, victimisation or
colourable exercise of power, this Court is of the view that the
principles of natural justice stood substantially complied with,
having regard to the nature of engagement and the limited civil
consequences involved.
17. So far as the issuance of fresh EOIs for the year
2025 is concerned, this Court finds that mere willingness to
participate does not give rise to any enforceable legal right. A
writ of mandamus can be issued only where a legal duty exists
and is shown to have been breached. As long as procurement
operations are being carried out through subsisting WSHGs
with satisfactory performance records, the State cannot be
compelled to issue EOIs merely to accommodate new entrants.
18. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit as an appellate
authority over administrative or policy decisions. Interference
is warranted only where the decision is shown to be arbitrary,
malafide or violative of statutory provisions. No such infirmity
has been demonstrated in the present case.
19. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this Court finds
no ground to interfere with the impugned actions of the
Opposite Party no.2 in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, keeping in view the broader objective of women
empowerment and inclusive participation, this Court considers
it appropriate to observe that the Government should, at the
policy level, consider providing adequate opportunity to new
Women's Self Help Groups in subsequent procurement years
as well as to those SHGs which were earlier debarred on
account of mis-management, subject to their satisfying the
essential parameters in accordance with the prescribed norms,
by making such modifications in the existing guidelines or
procedures as may be deemed appropriate, without
compromising efficiency, transparency and continuity of the
procurement process.
20. The writ applications are disposed of accordingly.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 19th December, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Dec-2025 11:18:31
