Orissa High Court
Krupajal Shg vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 7 May, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12666 of 2025
Krupajal SHG .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Das, Sr. Advocate
Ms. B. Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
2. Collector & District
Magistrate,
Balasore
3. District Social
Welfare Officer,
Balasore
4. C.D.P.O., Balasore
Municipality ICDS
Project
5. Jay Maa Durga SHG
6. Maa Durga SHG
Mr. S.P Das, ASC
Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
(O.P No.5)
Mr. B. P Das, Advocate
(O.P No.6)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
Order No. 07.05.2025
01. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the
Petitioner being assisted by Ms. B. Pradhan and learned
counsel for the Opposite Parties.
2. Being aggrieved by the order at Annexure-7, by
which the earlier arrangement to continue with the
Petitioner to prepare and supply of Chhatua under SNP
and MSPY in spite of his term having been expired, is
assailed in the present petition.
3. The learned senior counsel referring to the
judgment of this Court at the behest of the Petitioner
dated 24.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.20670 of 2023 at
Annexure-2 more particularly Paragraphs-43 and 44
thereof. The said paragraphs runs thus:
" xxx xxx xxx
43. As per Clause-1 of the Agreement, the same is
valid for the financial year 2023-2024. From Clause 4 of
the said Agreement, under the heading "Termination of
Contract", it is amply clear that the said Agreement shall
expire by efflux of time or by notice in terms of Clause
3, as quoted above. In view of such submissions made
by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, this
Court observes that, if fresh advertisement is made
inviting application for preparation and supply of THR
under SNP, Balasore, the Petitioner-SHG shall be given
preference taking into consideration its past experience
and carrying out the said job effectively and
continuously since 2011 till March 2022 in terms of the
Revised Guidelines for implementation of Take Home
Ration (THR).
have been completed and the Agreement period is over,
the prayer to set aside their selection and appointment as
THR to deal with preparation and supply of THR vide
letter dated 26.05.2023 needs no further order. However,
it is made clear that in terms of Clause 4(1) of the
Agreement no decision shall be taken for renewal of
contract in favour of the Opposite Party Nos.7 & 8,
ignoring the case of the Petitioner-S.H.G. (Emphasized)
xxx xxx xxx"
3A. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner places
great stress on the observation/direction of this Court
emphasized as above that in terms of clause-4(1) of the
agreement, no decision shall be taken for renewal of
contract in favour of the Opposite Party Nos.7 & 8,
ignoring the case of the Petitioner, SHG.
4. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel
Mr. Das, that the impugned order suffers from patently
violative of the direction of this Court as quoted above
relating to the weightage to be given to the Petitioner
and hence, the grievance as canvassed in the W.P(C)
No.20670 of 2023 merit consideration in this writ
petition.
4A. It is the further submission of the learned senior
counsel for the Petitioner even assuming that the order
was passed after taking into account the observation of
this Court quoted hereinabove, the order has been
passed without any opportunity of hearing. As such the
same is liable to be set aside solely on the said count on
the ground of violation of principle of natural justice.
5. It is apt to note that in terms of the order passed
by this Court vide Annexure-5 dated 29.03.2025, the
Petitioner-SHG was allowed to produce and distribute
THR along with two other contenders i.e. Jay Maa Durga
SHG & Maa Durga SHG (O.P Nos.5 and 6).
In the column under the heading
"renewed/allowed" the reference has also been made to
the above quoted order of this Court.
6. On the selfsame day a letter was addressed to
the Director of ICDS and Social Welfare, Women and
Child Development Officer, Bhubaneswar, wherein the
Government approval to engage three SHGs i.e. Jay
Maa Durga SHG & Maa Durga SHG (O.P Nos.5 and 6) as
well as the Petitioner to prepare and distribute Chattua
to the beneficiaries for the year 2025 as a line of
compliance to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.20670 of 2023 was sought.
Such proposal was not approved by the
Government and it was rejected by the impugned order
at Annexure-7 with a remark "the proposal is
regretted".
On a bare perusal of the impugned order at
Annexure-7, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the
earlier direction of this Court quoted hereinabove in
W.P.(C) No. 20670 of 2023 on which much reliance is
being placed by the learned senior counsel Mr. Das, has
not been taken into account. Rather taking into account
such direction permission from the Government was
sought and on consideration, the claim of the present
petitioner was negated.
At this stage, it is apt to note that in the case at
hand that the Opposite Party No.6 has entered caveat
and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.6
submits that he has instruction to appear.
7. It is trite that there is no embargo on the powers
of this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction even in the
face of alternative remedy and more so when violation
of principal of natural justice is alleged as in the case at
hand.
8. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer the
guidelines on record and on the basis of which the initial
agreement, the validity of which has admittedly expired
with efflux of time, was entered into.
9. It is apt to note here in terms of the said
guideline the contract has been executed, the non-
renewal of which is the subject matter of challenge. For
convenience of reference the clause-7 under the
heading "Termination of Contract" at Annexure-1 is
extracted hereunder:
"xxx xxx xxx
Termination of Contract
2. Before completion of 1 year, a review of the
SWHGS performance shall be made by the
Collector after which a decision can be taken to
either renew or rescind the contract.
3. In case the SHG fails to comply with any of
the terms and conditions of this MOU,it shall be
lawful on the part of the appropriate authority to
forfeit either in part or in full, the aforesaid
security deposit without prejudice to any right or
remedy available to him/her under the law.
4. Either party here shall have the liberty to
terminate the agreement at any time during the
contract period by giving at least one month
notice in writing to the other.
5. On termination of the MOU either by expiry of
time or by notice as aforesaid, the
agencies/WHGs shall deliver to the concern
authority, the entire balance foodstuff and
prepared THR etc.
6. Any claim of government remaining unpaid by
the SHG under operation of this MOU shall be
recoverable a s a public demand under the
public demand recovery Act 1962.
7. If any question or dispute shall at any time
arise between the parties here shall be referred
to the Collector of the District and appeal shall
lie before the Director, Social Welfare or any
other authority, as may be prescribed, whose
decision shall be final, conclusive and binding on
both the parties.
xxx xxx xxx"
10. In the factual matrix of the case at hand, this
Court is of the considered view that in terms of the
language of the said termination of contract, which also
binds the Petitioner being a "party" in terms of the
connotation of the said term "party" so used in the said
clause, there is effective alternative remedy which can
be availed by the Petitioner. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to exercise its plenary powers in entertaining
the present writ petitions.
11. It shall be open for the Petitioner to seek
redressal in terms of the agreement quoted
hereinabove within two weeks from the date of
uploading of the order.
12. In the event of the Petitioner prefers any
grievance in terms of the clause-7 "Termination of
Contract" before the Director of ICDS and Social
Welfare, Women and Child Development Officer,
Bhubaneswar, within the time frame as stipulated above
along with the copy of this order the same shall be
looked considered and redressed after giving
opportunity to the Petitioner as well as all the stake
holders within a period of six weeks of such motion.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Soumya
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 13-May-2025 10:32:04
