Afr Trinath Shakti Group (Shg) vs State Of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 372 Ori

Orissa High Court

Afr Trinath Shakti Group (Shg) vs State Of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. ... on 16 January, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          W.P (C) No. 30243 of 2025
      (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)


AFR     Trinath Shakti Group (SHG)               ......          Petitioner

                                      -Versus-

        State of Odisha & Others                 ......        Opp. Parties


        Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
        ______________________________________________________
        For Petitioner    : Mr. Sameer Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate with
                            M/s. P.S Mohanty, J. Pradhan, S.P. Parida &
                            S. Sahoo, Advocates

        For Opp. Parties : Mr.B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
                           Mr. P.K Rath, Sr. Advocate with
                           M/s. S. Rath, A. Behera, S.K. Behera, S. Das,
                           G. Lenka, A. Mohanty, S. Chandan, I.P. Bose,
                           S. Mohapatra & Mr. A. Biswal, Advocates
                           [For O.P. No.7]

                            Mr. S.N Pattnaik,
                            Addl. Government Advocate
        _______________________________________________________
        CORAM:
             JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
                                 JUDGMENT

th 16 January, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This writ application has been filed by the petitioner,

Trinath Shakti Group (SHG), assailing the order dated

14.10.2025 passed by the Director, ICDS & Social Welfare,

Women and Child Development Department, Government of

Odisha, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was

rejected and the order of the Collector, Bhadrak dated

20.09.2019, disengaging the petitioner from the preparation

and supply of Take Home Ration (THR/Chhatua) under the

Chandbali-II ICDS Project, was confirmed.

Case of the Petitioner

2. The petitioner is a registered Self Help Group

situated at Orasahi under Chandbali Block in the district of

Bhadrak. It holds a valid food licence issued under the

provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for

manufacture and supply of Take Home Ration (THR)

Chhatua. Pursuant to agreements executed with the Child

Development Project Officer (CDPO), Chandbali-II ICDS

Project, the petitioner had been engaged for preparation and

supply of THR (Chhatua) under the Supplementary Nutrition

Programme (SNP) since the year 2011. The agreements were

renewed from time to time in accordance with the applicable

guidelines. During the period from 2011 till October, 2019,

the petitioner's unit was subjected to periodical inspections

by various inspecting teams. The inspection reports placed

on record indicate that the quality of THR supplied by the

petitioner and its performance under the ICDS Project were

found satisfactory. No adverse communication relating to

quality, hygiene or delay in supply was issued to the

petitioner during the said period. On 10.09.2019, a District

Level Enquiry Team headed by the Tahasildar, Chandbali

conducted an enquiry into the functioning of the petitioner

SHG and submitted a report. The report recorded certain

observations relating to non-installation of a roasting

machine, cash transactions and maintenance of cash book

and pass book.

On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report dated

10.09.2019, the Collector, Bhadrak issued letter No.1971

dated 20.09.2019 directing rescission of the agreement with

the petitioner and initiation of the process for selection of a

new SHG under the Chandbali-II ICDS Project. Before

issuance of the said letter, no show cause notice was issued

to the petitioner and no opportunity of explanation or hearing

was afforded. Aggrieved by the enquiry report dated

10.09.2019 and the consequential order dated 20.09.2019

passed by the Collector, Bhadrak, the petitioner approached

this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19269 of 2019. By judgment

dated 06.05.2025, this Court disposed of the writ petition

directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the

Director, ICDS & Social Welfare, Odisha. Pursuant to the

aforesaid direction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before

the Director, ICDS & Social Welfare. Notice of hearing was

issued fixing the appeal for hearing on 26.08.2025 at the

Conference Hall of the Women and Child Development

Department. On the day of hearing, the Secretary of the

petitioner SHG was unable to attend the hearing due to

illness and authorised the Cashier of the SHG to appear on

her behalf. The authorised representative appeared in the

Secretariat on the scheduled date along with her Advocate

and her husband.

It is stated in the additional affidavit filed on behalf

of the petitioner that while gate passes were issued to the

authorised representative and her husband, the Advocate of

the Cashier was not issued a gate pass and was not

permitted to enter the conference hall. It is further stated

that though the husband of the authorised representative

was issued a pass, he was not allowed to enter the

conference hall to assist her during the hearing. It is further

stated that despite repeated requests made by the authorised

representative, the appellate authority did not permit the

Advocate or her husband to participate in the hearing and

proceeded with the hearing in the presence of departmental

officials. The hearing concluded on the same day.

3. The Director, ICDS & Social Welfare, by order dated

14.10.2025, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner

and confirmed the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the

Collector, Bhadrak, observing inter alia that continuation of

the petitioner was detrimental to public interest. Consequent

upon the appellate order, by order dated 15.10.2025, the

Collector, Bhadrak engaged Maa Basulai WSHG for

preparation and supply of THR (Chhatua) under the

Chandbali-II ICDS Project in place of the petitioner.

Stand of the Opposite Party No.2

4. Though no counter has been filed by the State,

however, the written instruction intimated to the Advocate

General's Office have been filed, which states that the

Director, ICDS & SW had intimated the Secretary of the

petitioner SHG for a personal hearing on 26.08.2025 at 4.00

P.M. at the conference hall of the W & CD Department, in

accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Court dated

06.05.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 19269 of 2019.

On the scheduled date of personal hearing, both the

Secretary and the President of the petitioner SHG authorized

the SHG's cashier to appear on their behalf, citing self-

illness, without any valid medical prescription to substantiate

their claimed illness. Neither of them informed the

Department, by mail or any other mode of communication, of

their inability to attend. Moreover, the said authorization

letter did not contain any request to permit the authorized

representative's husband or her advocate to represent her at

the hearing.

Stand of the Opposite Party No.7

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by Opposite Party

No. 7 opposing the writ application of the petitioner and

claiming engagement in the preparation and distribution of

Take Home Ration (THR) Chhatua and other products under

the ICDS Scheme since the year 2011. Opposite Party No. 7

states that prior to the engagement of the petitioner, it was

entrusted with the preparation and distribution of THR in six

out of eight sectors under the Chandbali-II ICDS Project and

had been discharging its responsibilities satisfactorily.

Opposite Party No. 7 also states that the petitioner was

disengaged on the basis of enquiry reports pointing out

deficiencies in its functioning, including issues relating to

quality, hygiene, and compliance with prescribed standards,

and that such disengagement was effected in accordance

with the Revised Guidelines governing the SNP.

Opposite Party No. 7 also contends that after the

disengagement of the petitioner, it was engaged in terms of

Clause 7.2 of the Revised Guidelines, which emphasises

entrustment of the preparation and distribution of THR to a

single SHG for the entire block, pursuant to which

agreements were executed between Opposite Party No. 7 and

the CDPO, Chandbali-II, from time to time. Opposite Party

No. 7 asserts that it has consistently maintained a

satisfactory performance record, as reflected in the annual

performance reviews conducted by the Block Level Committee

for the relevant years, and that no adverse report has been

recorded against it. Opposite Party No. 7 maintains that its

engagement pursuant to the orders of the Collector, Bhadrak,

and the CDPO is a consequential administrative action,

which has been confirmed by the appellate authority by order

dated 14.10.2025.

Submissions

6. Heard Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel

appearing along with Ms. P.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for

the petitioner; Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel and

Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with

Mr. A. Biswal, learned counsel for opposite party No. 7; and

Mr. S. N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate

for the State.

7. Mr. S. K. Mishra would argue that the impugned

orders are vitiated by gross violation of the principles of

natural justice. It was contended that the disengagement of

the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 20.09.2019 passed

by the Collector, Bhadrak was founded solely on the enquiry

report dated 10.09.2019, even though the petitioner was

neither issued any prior notice nor associated with the

enquiry proceedings, and no show-cause notice or

opportunity of hearing was afforded before rescission of the

agreement. He further submits that the alleged deficiencies

recorded in the enquiry report pertain primarily to

maintenance of accounts and certain procedural aspects, and

there was no finding of supply of sub-standard or unhygienic

THR. It was urged that during the long period of engagement

since 2011, the petitioner's performance had repeatedly been

found satisfactory in inspection reports and no adverse

communication relating to quality or delay in supply had ever

been issued to the petitioner.

8. It is also submitted that even subsequent to the

enquiry report, the petitioner's engagement had been

renewed from time to time, which itself demonstrates that the

authorities were satisfied with the petitioner's performance.

According to him, the abrupt disengagement of the petitioner

without adherence to the procedure prescribed under the

Revised Guidelines governing the SNP renders the action

arbitrary and unsustainable.

9. With regard to the appellate proceedings, he submits

that the hearing before the Director, ICDS & Social Welfare

was illusory and not in compliance with the direction of this

Court passed in W.P.(C) No.19269 of 2019. He argues that

although the petitioner was entitled to a opportunity of

hearing, the Advocate engaged by the petitioner was not

permitted to participate in the hearing and the authorised

representative was also denied assistance, resulting in denial

of effective representation. In such regard he submits that

the Secretary of the petitioner SHG, being unwell, authorised

the cashier to appear on its behalf. The authorised cashier

was not very literate and lacked the capacity to place the

factual and legal aspects of the case before the appellate

authority in an effective manner. Refusal to permit assistance

of the petitioner's husband and the Advocate seriously

prejudiced the petitioner and rendered the hearing

ineffective, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

10. He further submits that the appellate authority failed

to independently examine the procedural lapses committed at

the stage of disengagement and mechanically affirmed the

order of the Collector without considering the petitioner's

contentions, documents, and inspection reports placed on

record.

11. Lastly, he submits that subsequent engagement of

Opposite Party No.7 cannot validate an action which is

otherwise procedurally illegal and that the impugned orders

are liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of natural

justice alone, with a consequential direction to restore the

petitioner's engagement.

12. Mr. B. Routray would argue that the petitioner has

no enforceable or vested right to continue as a supplier under

the ICDS Scheme. He argues that engagement of a Self Help

Group for preparation and supply of Take Home Ration (THR)

Chhatua is purely contractual in nature and governed by the

Revised Guidelines under the SNP. He submits that the

petitioner was disengaged pursuant to the order dated

20.09.2019 passed by the Collector, Bhadrak on the basis of

a district level enquiry report pointing out deficiencies in the

functioning of the petitioner SHG, including issues relating to

infrastructure and maintenance of accounts. He submits that

this was effected in accordance with the relevant guidelines

and in the interest of effective implementation of the scheme.

He further submits that the agreement of the petitioner for

supply of THR (Chhatua) was subsisting only for the period

from 28.09.2018 to 27.09.2019. After completion of the

enquiry, an advertisement for selection of a new SHG

consequent upon rescission of the petitioner's contract was

issued on 20.09.2019, providing a period of two months for

completion of the selection process. It was contended that

since the selection was not made forthwith and the

contractual tenure of the petitioner was nearing expiry, there

was no requirement to issue a show cause notice, as the

petitioner had no right to seek renewal beyond the agreed

contractual period. He also submits that there was no re-

engagement or continuation of the petitioner after expiry of

its contractual term, and any supply of THR made thereafter

was solely by virtue of interim orders granted by this Court.

He argues that continuation of the petitioner in supplying

THR during the periods ending on 30.06.2025, 31.08.2025

and 30.09.2025 was not pursuant to any renewal or

extension of contract, but only on account of interim

directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19269 of 2019

by order dated 23.07.2024. No vested or accrued right can

flow from such interim arrangements. He also states that

Opposite Party No.7 was engaged strictly in terms of Clause

7.2 of the Revised Guidelines, which contemplates

entrustment of preparation and distribution of THR to a

single SHG for the entire block, and that such engagement,

having been confirmed by the appellate authority, does not

warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

13. Mr. P. K. Rath supplements the arguments made by

Mr. Routray by arguing that the allegations of violation of the

principles of natural justice are unfounded. He argues that

pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19269

of 2019, the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of

hearing before the Director, ICDS & Social Welfare. He

submits that the petitioner had expressly authorised only the

cashier of the SHG to appear and represent it before the

appellate authority, without granting authorisation to any

Advocate or to the husband of the authorised representative.

In the absence of any such authorisation, the cashier could

not have sub-delegated authority, and therefore non-

participation of the Advocate or any other person cannot be

construed as denial of a fair or reasonable opportunity of

hearing. He also submits that Opposite Party No.7 has been

associated with preparation and distribution of THR since

2011 and had earlier been entrusted with supply in six out of

eight sectors under Chandbali-II ICDS Project. The

performance of Opposite Party No.7 has consistently been

found satisfactory in the annual performance reviews

conducted by the Block Level Committee, and no adverse

report has been recorded against it.

14. Mr. S. N. Patnaik, would argue that the impugned

orders do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or

procedural impropriety warranting interference under Article

226 of the Constitution. He submits that the authorities

acted strictly in compliance with the directions issued by this

Court in the earlier round of litigation. He further submits

that pursuant to the judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed by

this Court in W.P.(C) No.19269 of 2019, the Director, ICDS &

Social Welfare, Odisha, issued notice fixing the appeal for

personal hearing on 26.08.2025 at the Conference Hall of the

Women and Child Development Department. The said notice

was duly communicated to the petitioner SHG, thereby

affording it an opportunity of hearing as directed by this

Court. On the scheduled date of hearing, neither the

Secretary nor the President of the petitioner SHG appeared

before the appellate authority, and both of them authorised

the cashier of the SHG to represent the petitioner, citing

illness without enclosing any medical document in support

thereof. He also submits that the authorisation letter did not

contain any request for permitting representation through an

Advocate or for allowing the husband of the authorised

representative to assist during the hearing. The order dated

14.10.2025 passed by the Director, ICDS & Social Welfare

reflects due consideration of the enquiry report, the relevant

guidelines governing the SNP and the materials placed on

record. The appellate authority, upon such consideration,

found no justification to interfere with the order dated

20.09.2019 passed by the Collector, Bhadrak.

15. He further submits that engagement of SHGs for

preparation and supply of THR under the ICDS Scheme is

governed by administrative guidelines and is subject to

periodic review in public interest. The petitioner has no

vested or statutory right to claim continuation or renewal of

such engagement beyond the contractual period.

Analysis and Findings

16. Having gone through the rival contentions and the

facts on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that

the petitioner SHG was engaged for the preparation and

supply of THR (Chhatua) under the SNP since the year 2011

and that its engagement was renewed from time to time. It is

also not disputed that a district-level enquiry was conducted

on 10.09.2019 and on the basis of the enquiry report, the

Collector, Bhadrak, issued the order dated 20.09.2019

rescinding the petitioner's agreement and initiating the

process for selection of a new SHG. The record reveals that

prior to issuance of the order dated 20.09.2019, no show

cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The disengagement

order was thus founded entirely on the enquiry report. While

the deficiencies noted in the enquiry report relate to issues of

infrastructure and maintenance of accounts, there is no

categorical finding of supply of sub-standard or unhygienic

THR. Nevertheless, it is well settled that where an

administrative decision visits civil consequences, adherence

to the principles of natural justice assumes significance,

unless expressly excluded by statute or by necessary

implication. At the same time, it is equally well settled that

engagement of SHGs for supply of THR under the ICDS

Scheme is contractual in nature and governed by executive

guidelines. The petitioner's agreement, as borne out from the

record, was subsisting only for the period from 28.09.2018 to

27.09.2019. Non-renewal of a contract upon expiry of its

tenure, by itself, does not create an enforceable right in

favour of the contractor, nor does it necessarily attract the

requirement of a prior show cause notice, particularly when

the governing guidelines do not provide for automatic

renewal.

17. The fact that an advertisement for selection of a new

SHG was issued on 20.09.2019 providing a period of two

months for completion of the selection process further

indicates that the authorities did not effect immediate

substitution, but allowed the contractual tenure of the

petitioner to run its course. In such circumstances, the

contention that rescission of the contract per se created a

vested right to renewal cannot be accepted.

18. Insofar as the appellate proceedings are concerned,

this Court, by order dated 06.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No.19269 of

2019, directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of

appeal and mandated consideration by the Director, ICDS &

Social Welfare. Pursuant thereto, notice of hearing dated

26.08.2025 was issued and communicated to the petitioner.

The petitioner does not dispute receipt of such notice.

19. On the scheduled date of hearing, neither the

Secretary nor the President of the petitioner SHG appeared

before the appellate authority and both authorised the

cashier to represent the SHG. The authorisation letter did not

extend authority to any Advocate or to the husband of the

authorised representative. In the absence of such

authorisation, the appellate authority cannot be faulted for

limiting participation to the authorised representative alone.

20. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that

the authorised cashier was not very literate and therefore

incapable of effectively presenting the case, though not

insignificant, cannot by itself invalidate the appellate

proceedings. Once the petitioner consciously chose to

authorise a particular representative without seeking

permission for legal representation, the consequences thereof

cannot be shifted to the appellate authority. Principles of

natural justice require opportunity of hearing, not a

guarantee of the most effective representation conceivable.

21. The appellate order dated 14.10.2025 reflects

consideration of the enquiry report, the applicable guidelines

and the materials placed on record. The appellate authority

recorded its satisfaction that continuation of the petitioner

was not in public interest and confirmed the order of the

Collector. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 does

not extend to reappreciation of such administrative decision

unless it is shown to be perverse, mala fide or wholly

unsupported by material on record.

22. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner

regarding continuation of supply during subsequent periods

also does not advance its case. The continuation of the

petitioner in supplying THR during the periods ending on

30.06.2025, 31.08.2025 and 30.09.2025 was admittedly on

account of interim orders granted by this Court. It is trite law

that continuation under an interim order does not create any

vested or accrued right nor does it revive a terminated

contract.

23. The engagement of Opposite Party No.7 pursuant to

the orders of the Collector and the Child Development Project

Officer, and its confirmation by the appellate authority,

appears to be in conformity with Clause 7.2 of the Revised

Guidelines.

24. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this Court finds

no ground to interfere with the impugned actions of Opposite

Party No.2 in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The decision-

making process, when viewed in its entirety, does not

disclose any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural impropriety

so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

25. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed being

devoid of merit.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16th January, 2026/A.K. Rana/P.A.

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Jan-2026 16:44:56