[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Odisha & Others on 30 January, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.751 of 2026
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Omm Baba Sanideb WSHG represented through its
Secretary, Sabita Behera, District-Bhadrak
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Dalei, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
(For the State)
Mr. S.K. Baral, Adv. (For O.P. No.6)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 30.01.2026
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-
Omm Baba Sanideb WSHG praying for quashing the Office
Order dated 03.01.2026 under Annexure-9 issued by the
Collector, Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.4) relating to the exclusion
of the name of the petitioner-WSHG from the Annexure-8 as a
society/agency for the procurement of paddy of Kharif
Marketing Season 2025-26 and to declare the action of the
Opp. Parties relating to the exclusion of the name of the
petitioner for the procurement of paddy for KMS 2025-26 as
arbitrary and illegal and issue a Writ of Mandamus directing
the Opp. Parties to allow the petitioner-WSHG to procure
Paddy for KMS 2025-2026 in accordance with the notified
policy along with other reliefs, to which, the petitioner-WSHG
is entitled for.
2. The case of the petitioner-WSHG is that, as per the
decision of the District Level Paddy Procurement Committee
(DLPC) for KMS 2025-26, the petitioner-WSHG was selected
as a paddy procurement society/agency of Basudevpur Block
reflecting the name of the petitioner-WSHG as such, in Serial
No.28 OF Annexure-4 indicating its PAC Code No.S2040801.
Thereafter, as per Office Order dated 11.12.2025 and
18.12.2025 issued by the Collector, Bhadrak (Opp. Party
No.4), a training programme was conducted and in such
training programme, the members of the petitioner-WSHG
successfully completed their training and demonstrated their
preparedness to procure paddy in compliances with the policy
frameworks as per Annexure-5 series. Thereafter, on dated
15.12.2025, the authorities distributed paddy procurement
equipments to all the selected WSHGs including the
petitioner-WSHG, to which, the petitioner-WSHG received with
proper acknowledgments.
The above conduct of the Opp. Parties is clearly clarifying
that, petitioner-WSHG was fully equipped in its all respect for
the procurement of paddy for KMS 2025-26. Nodal Officer was
also duly appointed for the smooth progress of the paddy
procurement system by the petitioner-WSHG and the final list
of eligible Women Self Help Groups including the petitioner-
WSHG for the procurement of paddy for KMS 2025-26 was
prepared on dated 02.01.2026 as per Annexure-8, in which,
the name of the petitioner-WSHG was in Sl. No.3, but on its
next day, i.e. on 03.01.2026, suddenly, the same Collector,
Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.4) unilaterally and illegally issued the
impugned Office Order vide Annexure-9 excluding the name of
the petitioner-WSHG as an agency for the procurement of
paddy for KMS 2025-26 behind the back of the petitioner
without giving any opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner-WSHG for the exclusion its name from the paddy
procurement system for KMS 2025-26 and illegally tagged to
the registered farmers of the petitioner with Opp. Party No.6-
WSHG for the paddy procurement for KMS 2025-26.
For which, without, getting any way, the petitioner filed
this writ petition against the Opp. Parties praying for
quashing the impugned Letter/Order dated 03.01.2026 vide
Annexure-9 issued/passed by the Collector, Bhadrak (Opp.
Party No.4) relating to the exclusion of the name of the
petitioner-WSHG as an agency for the procurement of paddy
for Kharif Marketing Season 2025-26 and to declare the action
of the Opp. Parties as arbitrary and illegal and to issue a Writ
of Mandamus against the Opp. Parties directing the Opp.
Parties to allow the petitioner-WSHG to procure the paddy for
KMS 2025-2026 in accordance with the notified policy.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and the
learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.6.
4. The undisputed documents relied by the petitioner vide
Annexures-1 to 8 are going to show that, the petitioner was
selected as a paddy procurement society /agency for KMS
2025-26 of Basudevpur Block in the District of Bhadrak and
its PACS Code No. was S2040801 and accordingly, as per the
Order of the Collector, Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.4), the
members of the petitioner-WSHG successfully completed the
training programmes for the procurement of paddy for KMS
2025-26 and the equipments for paddy procurement were
issued by the authorities to the petitioner-WSHG. In the final
list prepared by the Opp. Parties dated 02.01.2026 vide
Annexure-8, the name of the petitioner was reflected by the
Opp. Parties in Sl. No.3 as a paddy procurement
society/agency of Basudevpur Block for KMS 2025-26, but as
per Letter No.69 dated 03.01.2026 (Annexure-9), the Opp.
Party No.4 eliminated/excluded the name of the petitioner-
WSHG from the paddy procurement system of KMS-2025-26
tagging the registered farmers of the petitioner-WSHG with the
Opp. Party No.6-WSHG for the procurement of paddy in place
of the petitioner under the following grounds i.e.
"(i). No specific office room and space is not suitable for
loading & unloading of paddy.
(ii). Boundary wall, Pindi & Godown facility is not
available.
(iii). Reply of the show cause submitted by the WSHG is
not satisfactory.
& the registered farmers of the WSHG will be tagged to
Sureswarpur PACS, Basudevpur Municipality (Opp. Party
No.6)."
5. The undisputed documents relied upon by the petitioner-
WSHG including the final list of selection as the paddy
procurement society/agency for KMS-2025-26 of Basudevpur
Block vide Annexure-8 prepared on dated 02.01.2026 is going
to show that, the petitioner was selected by the Opp. Parties
as the society/agency for the procurement of paddy for KMS
2025-26 of Basudevpur Block, but, on its next day, as per
letter No. 69 dated 03.01.2026 vide Annexure-9, the Collector,
Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.4) eliminated/excluded the name of
the petitioner-WSHG from such list and tagged the registered
farmers of the petitioner-WSHG with Sureswarpur PAC (Opp.
Party No.6) on the grounds as indicated above in Para No.4 of
this Judgment.
6. When the petitioner was selected by the Opp. Parties as
a paddy procurement society/agency for the KMS 2025-26
and when trainings were provided to the members of the
petitioner-WSHG by the Opp. Parties for the same and when
the equipments were supplied by the Opp. Parties to the
petitioner-WSHG for such procurement of paddy for KMS
2025-26 and when in the final list of the selected WSHGs as
paddy procurement societies/agencies for KMS 2025-26 was
prepared indicating/reflecting the name of the petitioner in
the Serial No.3 of Letter No.19 dated 02.01.2026 vide
Annexure-8, then, on the basis of the said undisputed
documents vide Annexures 1 to 8, certain rights were created
in favour of the petitioner-WSHG as a selected paddy
procurement society/agency for the procurement of paddy for
KMS 2025-26 and when on its next day of Annexure-8, as per
the impugned Office Letter No.69 dated 03.01.2026 vide
Annexure-9, the Opp. Party No.4 eliminated/excluded the
name of the petitioner from such list and tagged all the
registered farmers of the petitioner with the Opp. Party No.6,
then, at this juncture, as per law, before
elimination/exclusion of the name of the petitioner-WSHG
from Annexure-8 as per Annexure-9, an opportunity of being
heard should have been given by the Opp. Party No.4 to the
petitioner to have its say before the Opp. Party No.4
explaining/objecting the above grounds of its elimination but,
the Opp. Party No.4 has not done so. Because, the Annexure-
9 does not reveal about providing any opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner-WSHG about the same as well as the
causes and reasons for discarding the so-called show-cause, if
any of the petitioner-WSHG.
7. It is the specific/definite case of the petitioner-WSHG as
well as the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner-WSHG that, any show-cause was not given to the
petitioner by the Opp. Party No.4 stating/indicating the above
so-called grounds for elimination of the name of the
petitioner-WSHG and any opportunity of being heard was not
given to the petitioner for the elimination of the name of the
petitioner from Annexure-8 as per Annexure-9.
8. It is the settled propositions of law that, if an any show
cause notice issued and if any, reply is submitted on the basis
of such show-cause, then, it shall be the duty of the authority
to consider that reply and then, to take decision on the same.
The "consideration" of show-cause means "active
consideration", without which, it cannot be said that, the
principle of natural justice has been followed.
The authority also bound to pass a reasoned order only
after considering the contents of the reply to the show-cause
and not whimsically stating that, the reply furnished against
the show-cause was not found to be satisfactory.
It is also very fundamental in law that, merely by
issuance of notice to show-cause without providing reasonable
time to file reply, the same would not amount to non-
compliance of the principles of natural justice. Because,
purpose of issuance of show-cause notice is to provide
reasonable time for the submission of reply, in absence of
which, the same would amount to non-compliance of the
principles of natural justice.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Nilamani Jal Vs. Collector,
Bolangir and Ors. reported in 2016 (II) OLR 190 that,
although show cause notice has been issued and the
petitioner has given his reply, but merely issuance of
show-cause is not sufficient to say that, the principles of
natural justice has been followed, rather, when an
employee in whose against show cause notice is being
issued and submit reply, it is the duty of the authority
to consider that and thereafter, to take decision.
Consideration means active consideration. Order cannot
be held to be sustainable and the same is quashed.
II. In a case between (M/s) East Coast Constructions
Industries Ltd., Odisha vs. State of Odisha & Others
reported in 2016 (II) CLR 359 that, merely completing
the formality of giving notice is not sufficient for
complying with the principles of natural justice, as once
after the notice is issued and a detailed reply is given by
the party, the authority is duty bound to pass a
reasoned order only after considering the contents of the
reply, and not by whimsically stating that, the reply
furnished was not found to be satisfactory. (Para No.7)
9. When the impugned Office Letter No.69 dated
03.01.2026 vide Annexure-9 issued by the Opp. Party No.4,
for the elimination/exclusion of the name of the petitioner-
WSHG as a paddy procurement society/agency for KMS 2025-
26 from Annexure-8 after creation of certain rights in favour
of the petitioner as per Annexures-1 to 8 is not going to show
that, which show-cause was issued by the Opp. Party No.4 to
the petitioner and what was the reply of the petitioner against
the same and when the petitioner has stated that, in this writ
petition supported with an affidavit that, no show-cause was
issued to the petitioner by the Opp. Party No.4 and when the
Opp. Parties neither filed, nor relied upon any impugned so-
called show-cause as well as the impugned reply to the same
given by the petitioner-WSHG, then, at this juncture, it is held
that, the impugned Letter/Order dated 03.01.2026 vide
Annexure-9 has been issued/passed by the Opp. Party No.4
eliminating/excluding the name of the petitioner as a paddy
procurement society/agency for KMS 2025-26 from Annexure-
8 is not legally sustainable under law on the ground of non-
compliance of the principles of natural justice.
10. For which, there is justification under law to consider the
grounds of elimination/exclusion of the name of the petitioner
indicated in Annexure-9 afresh by the Opp. Party No.4
(Collector, Bhadrak) after proper compliance of the principles
of natural justice and after giving opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner, but till final decision of the Opp. Party No.4
in that matter, the responsibility/assignment given to the
Opp. Party No.6 tagging the registered farmers of the
petitioner-WSHG with the Opp. Party No.6 for the
procurement of paddy for KMS 2025-26 should not be
disturbed/interfered only for the reason that, the
disturbance/interference in favour of the Opp. Party No.6
shall ultimately affect the farmers' interest in selling the
paddy. But, if after fresh hearing, if it will be found that, the
allegations alleged against the petitioner-WSHG for the
elimination of its name are false, then, the petitioner-WSHG
can be entitled for proper compensation for unnecessary
harassments.
11. As such, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by
the petitioner-WSHG. The same is to be allowed.
12. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed.
13. The impugned Letter/Order No.69 dated 03.01.2026 vide
Annexure-9 issued/passed by the Opp. Party No.4(Collector,
Bhadrak) relating to the elimination/exclusion of the name of
the petitioner-WSHG as a paddy procurement society/agency
of Basudevpur Block for KMS 2025-26 is quashed except the
tagging up of the registered farmers of the petitioner-WSHG
with the Opp. Party No.6-WSHG.
14. The Opp. Party No.4 (Collector, Bhadrak) is directed to
consider the matter relating to the elimination/exclusion of
the name of the petitioner as a paddy procurement
society/agency of Basudevpur Block for KMS 2025-26 afresh
and to take fresh decision on the same after issuance of show-
cause notice to the petitioner-WSHG providing the petitioner-
WSHG an opportunity for filing of its reply against the show-
cause as well as after giving opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner-WSHG and others, if any, in full compliance with
the principles of natural justice clarifying that, the tagging up
of the registered farmers of the petitioner-WSHG with the Opp.
Party No.6-WSHG for the procurement of the paddy for KMS
2025-26 indicated in Annexure-9 is remained undisturbed/
unaltered.
It is made clear here that, if in the fresh decision of the
Opp. Party No.4 (Collector, Bhadrak), it is found that, the
alleged grounds for elimination/exclusion of the name of the
petitioner-WSHG indicated in Para No.4 of this Judgment are
false, then, the petitioner-WSHG is at liberty to claim
compensation for unnecessary harassments on the basis of
the alleged false allegations against the erring
persons/officials those had alleged such false allegations.
15. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 30 .01. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
