Orissa High Court
M/S.Nitai Gaura Women'S S.H.G vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 24 October, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
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
Mr.Asok Mohanty,
Sr. Advocate,
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,
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,
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,
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
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;
"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
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
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
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
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 pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems
fit and proper for the ends of justice.
And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
(2015) 7 SCC 728
(2021) 6 SCC 771
v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking,3 wherein the following was observed;
"50. This Court being the guardian of fundamental
rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is
arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias.
However, this Court has cautioned time and again
that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while
exercising their powers of judicial review in
contractual or commercial matters. This Court is
normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters
unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides
or bias or irrationality is made out.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
The courts should not use a magnifying glass while
scanning the tenders and make every small mistake
appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give
"fair play in the joints" to the government and public
sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts
must also not interfere where such interference will
cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer."
Even in Radha Krishan Industries (supra), the
Supreme Court held as follows;
"The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
ordinarily does not entertain a writ petition where an
effective alternative remedy exists, except in cases
involving enforcement of fundamental rights, violation
of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenges to
the vires of legislation. While the rule of exhausting
statutory remedies is one of policy and discretion, the
High Court retains the powers to exercise writ
jurisdiction whenever the nature of the case so
demanded."
(2023) 19 SCC 1
17. Having said so, this Court finds that the dispute
in the present case is not so much regarding the
breach of contract or any dispute per se arising out of
the contract but one which relates specifically to
violation of the 2018 guidelines. If the contentions
raised by the Petitioners in the first batch of Writ
Petitions were to be accepted, it would imply that
Clause-12(ii) of the 2018 guidelines stood violated. The
contract flows from the guidelines and therefore cannot
be treated in isolation. The Writ Petition seeks to
examine this aspect and not any violation per se of the
terms of the contract. To such extent therefore, the
argument advanced by the learned Senior counsel is
not acceptable.
18. Having held the Writ Petition as maintainable,
this Court shall now proceed to deal with the rival
contentions advanced with regard to the merits of the
case.
The facts of the case are not disputed inasmuch
as Biswonath WSHG has been engaged to manufacture
and supply THR (Chhatua) to the beneficiaries since
2011 by signing contract. Such contract has been
renewed from year to year, the last of which was valid
till 31.3.2025. As already stated, by way of
administrative orders, the contract period have been
extended till 31st December, 2025. The bone of
contention between the parties in this case is issuance
of the advertisement on the directions of the Collector,
by the CDPO on 20.3.2025. It has been forcefully
contended on behalf of the petitioners in the first batch
of writ petitions that the advertisement is without
jurisdiction as the guidelines do not confer any power
on the Collector to take such a decision. On the
contrary, it has been argued by learned counsel for the
petitioners in the second batch of writ petitions that
the Collector was well within his right to go for an
advertisement in order to ensure a level-playing field
for all eligible WSHGs and to select a suitable WSHG in
a fair and transparent manner consistent with the
principles underlying Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
19. The Government of Orissa in the Department of
W and C. D. issued a set of guidelines titled 'Revised
Guidelines for Implementation of Take Home Ration,
2018' (Supplementary Nutrition Programme of ICDS
and Scheme for adolescent Girls) [2018 Guidelines].
Under the said guidelines, the Supplementary
Nutrition Programme (SNP) aims to improve the health
and nutritional status of children, pregnant women
and lactating mothers. Children in the age group of 6
months to 6 years, pregnant women and lactating
mothers are given nutritional support for 300 days a
year. Each beneficiary is given nutritious food as part
of morning snacks, hot cooked meals and Take Home
Ration under the programme. Take Home Ration is
given to pregnant and lactating mothers and to
children from 6 months to 3 years as they do not
attend the Anganwadi Center (AWC) on a daily basis.
Severely underweight children (3- 6 years) are also
given THR in addition to hot cooked meal. Clause-6(iii)
of the guidelines provides that under Take Home
Ration (Chhatua), dry ration such as halwa, groundnut
rasi, jagerri ladu or chikki, besan and atta/ragi and
besan ladu shall be given to ensure that (i) proper
nutritional inputs are provided (ii) quality is
maintained and (iii) the product can be checked by any
monitoring authority either at preparation, distribution
or consumption stage.
20. Clause-7 deals with selection of SHG for
preparation and distribution of THR and is reproduced
below:
"7. Selection of SHGs for preparation and
distribution of THR
• Take Home ration (Chhatua), Dry ration for halwa,
Badam & Raasi Chikki and Ragi and Besan/Atta
and Besan Ladoo) Is to be prepared and supplied by
Women Self Help groups/ S6H Federations only.
• In order to ensure uniformity and quality it is better
that a single SHG supplies to the whole Block/Project.
If that is not feasible, the Collector may assign
maximum two SHGs to prepare Chhatua in a
Block/Project. However, division of a Block/Project
among more than one SHG should be avoided as far
as practicable.
• A separate SHG level may be engaged at the GP level
for production and supply of Dry ration for Halwa,
Badam and Raasi Chikki and Ragi & Besan/ Atta &
Besan Ladoo.
• Grading norms should be followed for selection of the
SHG(s). Only graded SHG(s) that have experience of
preparation of Chhatua and having equipment's for
roasting, drying, grinding and packaging should be
selected as the first preference. Therafter graded
SHG(s) having experience in grinding other
condiments like haldi etc. and having the equipment
should be selected. Only if none of the above Is
available, a graded SHG with experience of
processing should be selected.
• The manufacturing units of the SHG should be located
within the assigned ICDS project area/GP area. The
ownership of die machineries should t)e In the name
of the SHGS/SHG Federation. Land, building for the
production unit of the SHG should be owned, leased
or rented (with proper records) by the SHGs/SHG
Federation.
• Collectors should take the help of personnel of
Mission Shakti, Tripti, ORMAS, NRLM, OTELP, WORLP
etc. to identify good SHGs and also to install ready to
eat plants. Wherever required, for SHG(s)."
Contract conditions have been provided under Clause-12
as follows:
"12. Contract conditions
i) A contract should be signed between the CDPO and
the SHG(s) laying down the terms and conditions of
preparation and supply. Normally, the contract should
be for a period of one year only. Draft Contract at
Annexure-VII.
ii) Before the end of one year a review of the SHG(s)
performance should be made by the Collector after
which a decision can be taken to either renew or
rescind the contract.
iii) In case any SHG (s) is found to have deviated from
the guidelines and made Chhatua/ Ladoo that has
less protein and calorie than prescribed or has sold
the Chhatua Ladoo in the market by misutilizing
government money, strictest possible action should be
taken against the SHG(s). This would entail
termination of the contract, stoppage of micro credit
support by the department to the SHG(s). A fine can
also be enforced on the SHG(s). Proper procedure
ensuring natural justice should be followed before
taking any action.
The following penalties may be imposed in case
of violation or lapses observed with the SHGs
engaged for production and supply of THR.
Sl. No. Type of violation/lapses Suggestive Penalties
1 Gap in infrastructure as Show cause notice and
specified in the Contract Termination of contract
2 Any deviation in agreed place Show cause notice and
of production or storage Termination of Contract
3 Variation in Physical Stock and Suspension and
Book of Accounts Termination of contract
4 Gap Accounts maintenance of Show cause notice
Book of Accounts
5 Less quantity of THR in packets Cost Recovery, Forfeiture
of Security Deposit and
Termination of contract
6 Substandard quality on Show cause notice,
Chhatua as per nutritional Forfeiture of Security
norms Deposit and Termination of
contract
7 Samples found adulterated Termination and Black
listing for 5 years along
with forfeiture of Security
Deposit, Lodging of FIR
8 Samples sold in the market Show cause notice and
Termination of contract,
cost recovery
9 Financial irregularity Show cause notice,
Forfeiture of Security
Deposit and Termination.
Another WSHG should be immediately engaged for
preparation of THR so that there is no disruption in
the supply in the AWCS."
21. From a reading of the aforequoted relevant
clauses of the 2018 guidelines, the following facts
emerge;
(i) Take Home Ration is intended to be
provided to physically vulnerable sections of
the community,
(ii) specific parameters and procedures
have been provided for selection of suitable
SHGs to be engaged for preparation and
supply of THR,
(iii) the selected SHG has to execute a
contract with the CDPO laying down the
terms and conditions of preparation and
supply, valid for one year,
(iv) before the end of one year, the
performance of the SHG has to be reviewed
by the Collector,
(v) The decision to renew or rescind the
contract shall be passed upon review of the
SHG's performance,
(vi) specific penalties have been suggested
for different types of violations, if noticed.
Thus, as it appears, the 2018 guidelines is a
self-contained code governing each and every aspect of
the Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP). It is
also seen that the provision relating to selection of
SHGs do not contemplate selection through open
advertisement. It is admitted that the Collector,
Bhadrak in his letter dtd.19.3.2025 instructed all
C.D.P.Os. to publish fresh notification for the year
2025-26. Accordingly, the C.D.P.O. vide Notification
dtd.20.3.2025 issued advertisement inviting
applications from the eligible and willing SHGs for
preparation and distribution of THR material in
Bhadrak ICDS Project. As already stated, there is no
provision in the 2018 Guidelines empowering the
Collector to adopt the above process for selection of the
SHGs. In fact, issuance of the advertisement by itself
runs contrary to the procedure for selection provided
under Clause-7. Thus, there is clear violation of the
guidelines. The State has not produced any material
before this Court to show that the procedure
contemplated under Clause-12 (ii) was undertaken
prior to expiry of the latest contract on 31.3.2025. In
other words, there is nothing on record to suggest that
exercise contemplated under the aforesaid clause i.e. of
conducting a review of the performance of SHG's was
ever undertaken. It cannot be denied that the decision
to renew or rescind the contract can only be taken on
the basis of the review of the performance of the SHGs
concerned. This is also a violation of the provisions of
the guidelines.
22. Now, the question arises as to what would be the
effect of violation of these guidelines. In this context,
learned Senior counsel and counsel appearing for the
petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions have
argued that the Collector has no power to act contrary
to the provisions of the guidelines. On the other hand,
learned State counsel as well as learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners in the second batch of
writ petitions have argued that the Collector having
adopted a fair and transparent procedure to select a
SHG by providing a level-playing field to all eligible
SHGs, the constitutional requirement of equality
contemplated under Article 14 stands fulfilled.
Therefore, the alleged so-called violation of the
guidelines can have no impact. It is further argued by
learned Senior counsel that the State/employer has
the discretion to determine criteria for selection by
going for open tender, advertisement or renewal as
long as it is non-arbitrary and transparent. Learned
Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Energy Ltd. v.
Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd.,
(2007) 8 SCC 14, wherein the level-playing field
doctrine was introduced to lay down that selection
process must be transparent, but the authority retains
discretion in fixing criteria.
23. This takes the Court to the question as to if the
level playing field doctrine would supersede the 2018
Guidelines.
24. Admittedly, there is no statutory enactment
governing the field. It is only the 2018 guidelines that
hold the field. The question whether a non-statutory
guideline could be legally enforceable or binding was
considered by the Supreme Court in the case of
(2007) 8 SCC 1
Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India,
1990 Supp SCC 4405;
"Guidelines are issued by Governments and
statutory authorities in various types of
situations. Where such guidelines are intended
to clarify or implement the condition and
requirements precedent to the exercise of
certain rights conferred in favour of citizens or
persons and a deviation therefrom directly
affects the rights so vested the persons whose
rights are affected have a clear right to
approach the Court for relief.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Judicial control takes over only where the
deviation either involves arbitrariness or
discrimination or is so fundamental as to
undermine a basic public purpose which the
guidelines and the statute under which they
are issued are intended to achieve."
25. In fact it has been held that where rules are
silent, administrative instructions can be relied upon
as was held by the Supreme Court in the case of E.S.
Patangwala Industrial Estate v. Collector of
Central Excise,6 and Nagpur Improvement Trust v.
Yadaoro Jagannath Kumbhare,7. It has also been
held that the same principles of statutory
1990 Supp SCC 440
(1998) 8 SCC 752
(1999) 8 SCC 99
interpretation as are applicable to statutory
enactments also apply to administrative instructions.
Reference in this regard can be had to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Director, C.B.I v.
D.P.Singh, (2010) I SCC 6478.
It has been a long settled position of law that
when a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a
particular manner, the same is to be done in that
manner or not at all, as held in the case of Nazir
Ahmad v. King-Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 419.
26. Thus, from a reading of the case laws referred to
above as juxtaposed with the findings of this Court
regarding violation of Clauses-7 and 12(ii) of the 2018
guidelines, the irresistible conclusion available to be
drawn is, the decision of the Collector and the
consequential Notification issued by the CDPO floating
an advertisement on 20.3.2025 cannot be sustained in
the eye of law being de hors the guidelines.
(2010) I SCC 647
1936 SCC OnLine PC 41
27. This is being said for all the more reason that
there is no evidence whatsoever of any review being
conducted regarding the performance of concerned
SHG nor of any clear-cut adverse report being
submitted by the competent authority against it.
Having held thus, this Court would hasten to add that
no party to a contract can seek renewal of the contract
as a matter of right. In fact, Clause-12(ii) so heavily
relied upon by the petitioners in the first batch of writ
petitions, itself says so. The argument that the
petitioner SHG having been engaged in the work since
2011 and having created infrastructure by investing a
lot of money and therefore has a legitimate expectation
of its contract being renewed indefinitely cannot be
accepted. This is for the same reason that the
guidelines do not provide consideration of any aspect
other than performance vis-a-vis the standards as the
basis for renewal of contract.
28. As regards the argument that the contracts have
been renewed in some other districts, this Court would
not be influenced by such renewal in view of what has
been said hereinabove that renewal of contract is to be
governed by the requirements of Clause-12 (ii) and
nothing else. Once this Court holds that the impugned
advertisement has no legal sanctity, it automatically
nullifies the claim of the petitioners in the second
batch of writ petitions for finalizing the selection
process. The very foundation of their case rests on the
validity of the advertisement, which this Court has
found otherwise. As such, this Court holds that the
petitioners of the second batch of writ petitions are not
entitled to any relief whatsoever.
29. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts,
law, contentions raised and the discussions made, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners
of the first batch of writ petitions have made out a good
case for interference. It is held that the impugned
advertisement dtd.20.3.2025 cannot be sustained in
the eye of law.
30. In the result, the first batch of Writ Petitions is
allowed. The impugned advertisement dtd.20.3.2025
is hereby quashed. The Collector, Bhadrak is directed
to act strictly in terms of the 2018 Guidelines for
renewal/rescission of the existing contracts.
31. The second batch of Writ Petitions being devoid
of merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
..................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
