[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Odisha & Others on 10 February, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3375 of 2026
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Maa Tara Tarini SHG, represented through its Secretary,
Sukanti Swain, District-Ganjam
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, SC
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 10.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 10.02.2026
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner-
WSHG praying for quashing the removal of the name of the
petitioner-WSHG for procuring paddy for KMS 2025-26 from
the Office Order/letter No.80/Judicial/MS/2026 dated
19.01.2026 under Annexure-7 passed/issued by the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Ganjam (Opp. Party No.2)
and to direct the Opp. Party No.2 for the inclusion/insertion
of the name of the petitioner WSHG in that Annexure-7 as a
paddy procurement agency for KMS 2025-26 and to pass such
other order(s) in favour of the petitioner.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which
prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, as per
the final order dated 08.01.2026 passed in WPC No.33142 of
2025 by this Court, the Collector-cum-Chairman of the
District Level Paddy Procurement Committee was directed to
finalize the selection of WSHGs for the procurement of paddy
for KMS 2025-26 considering the case of the petitioner-WSHG
along with other WSHGs. On the basis of the said order dated
08.01.2026 passed in WPC No.33142 of 2025 by this Court,
district level verification team was constituted as per the
Order of the Opp. Party No.2 for verification and submission
of report relating to the eligibility of the WSHG for the
selection of paddy procurement for KMS 2025-26 on being
headed by Deputy Collector, Revenue. During such
verification by the Committee, the name of the Petitioner-
WSHG was in Sl. No.2 as per Annexure-6. The committee
members were fully satisfied with the infrastructures,
equipments and materials of the petitioner-WSHG according
to the guidelines issued by the FS & CW Department vide
Letter No.21433 dated 18.12.2025 to be selected for the
procurement of paddy, but, surprisingly, without any reason,
the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Ganjam (Opp. Party
No.2) as per the impugned Order/letter
No.80/Judicial/MS2026 dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-7)
removed/excluded the name of the petitioner-WSHG and
permitted other WSHGs for the procurement of paddy for
KMS-2025-26. For which, the petitioner-WSHG has
challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for
quashing the removal of the name of the petitioner-WSHG
from Annexure-7 (Order/Letter No.80/Judicial/MS 2026
dated 19.01.2026) and to direct the Opp. Party No.2 for the
inclusion/insertion of the name of the petitioner in the said
list, as the name of the petitioner has been removed/excluded
illegally without assigning any reason/cause for such
exclusion/removal.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State.
4. It is well evident from the impugned Order/letter No.80
dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-7) passed/issued by O.P. No.2
that, "no reason/cause has been assigned for the
removal/exclusion of the name of the petitioner WSHG as a
paddy procurement agency for KMS 2025-26".
It is the settled propositions of law that, when any order
is not backed/supported by any reason, then the said order is
to be termed as a non-speaking order. That order cannot be
sustainable under law. Because as per law, such order is
against the principles of natural justice, only due to non-
assigning of any reason/cause for passing of the same.
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
(a) In a case between Kranti Associates Private
Limited & Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others
reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496 that, In India the
judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even
in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect
anyone prejudicially.
(b) In a case between Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of
India reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 that, law cannot
permit any exercise of power by an executive to keep the
reasons undisclosed if the only motive for doing so is to
keep the reasons away from judicial scrutiny.
(c) In a case between Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of
Bihar & Others reported AIR 2003 SC page 4664,
that, the reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.
(d) In a case between Vishwanath Jha & Others Vs.
State of Bihar through the Collector and Others
reported in 2025 (1) CCC 310 (Patna) that, reason is
heartbeat of every conclusion. Pretence of reasons or
rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid
decisions-making process.
(e) In a case between India Limited Vs. Sales Tax
Officer, Rourkela-I Circle reported in AIR 2009
(Supll.) SC 561 that, reason is the heart beat of every
conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without
the same it becomes lifeless.
(f) Special appeal No.497 of 2021 Allahabad
Durgawati Singh and others Vs. Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies & Chits Lucknow and others
decided on 04.01.2022 that, Whenever an order is
struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of
natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and
fresh proceedings are left open.
5. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex
Court to the impugned order/letter vide Annexure-7
passed/issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam
(O.P. No.2), it is held that, the impugned order/letter
passed/issued on dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-7) by the
Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam (Opp. Party No.2)
relating to the removal of the name of the Petitioner-WSHG for
procuring paddy for KMS 2025-26 is not sustainable under
law.
For which, there is justification under law for making
interference only with the said exclusion of the name of the
petitioner-WSHG from the Annexure-7 through this writ
petition filed by the petitioner-WSHG.
6. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner-WSHG. The same is to be allowed.
7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed.
8. The impugned Letter/Order No.80/Judl./MS/2026
dated 19.01.2026 vide Annexure-7 issued/passed by the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Ganjam (Opp. Party No.2)
is quashed only relating to the removal/elimination of the
name of the petitioner-WSHG as a paddy procurement
society/agency for KMS 2025-26.
9. The Opp. Party No.2 (Collector & District Magistrate,
Gnajam) is directed to consider the matter relating to the
elimination/exclusion of the name of the petitioner as a paddy
procurement society/agency for KMS 2025-26 after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-WSHG and others, if
any, complying the principles of natural justice without
interfering with the continuation of the present paddy
procurement of KMS 2025-26, if the same will have been
made by the Opp. Party No.2 in the meanwhile.
It is made clear here that, if in the fresh decision of the
Opp. Party No.2 (Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam), it is
found that, the elimination/removal of the name of the
petitioner-WSHG from procuring paddy for KMS 2025-26 is
baseless, then, the petitioner-WSHG is at liberty to claim
compensation for its baseless exclusion/removal from the
erring persons/officials those had alleged such false and
baseless allegations.
10. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 10 .02. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
