Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gitanjali Shikshan Sansthan vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 October, 2023

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13914/2023

Anju Shiksha Samiti, Churu Through Its President Ankit Saini S/o Babulal Saini Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Hanuman Dhora, Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Bikaner.

4. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation District Bikaner.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13203/2023 Gitanjali Shikshan Sansthan, Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary Atul Krishan S/o Ram Prakash Aged About 63 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, 4Cym, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self-

Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.

4. The Municipal Council, Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13364/2023 Govindram Laxminarayan Ladnu, Through Its Proprietor Shri Ram Saini S/o Laxmi Pant Saini Aged About 37 R/o Ward No. 27, Pahali Patti, Near Oswal Bhawan Ladnu Now District Deedwana - Kuchaman (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Bikaner.

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (2 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

4. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation District Bikaner.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13393/2023 Lal Bahadur Shastri Shiksha Samiti Rawatsar, Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary Bhan Singh S/o Revant Singh Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 21, Sanjay Basti, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self-

Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.

4. The Municipal Council Haumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13394/2023 Maa Saraswati Computer Shikshan Sansthan, Through Its President Vinod Poonia S/o Om Prakash Aged About 33 Years R/o 8 Am District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Addition Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.

4. The Municipal Council, Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13973/2023 M/s Anndata Electronic And Construction Supplyers, Through Its Proprietor Jugal Kishore Ojha S/o Shri Brij Lal Ojha, Aged About 65 Years, R/o F-276, Murlidhar Vyas Nagar, Bikaner (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Directorate Local Bodies Through Its Director And Special Government Secretary, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Village Development And Panchayati Raj Through Its Secretary, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Municipal Council, Through Its Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Marg, Bikaner (Raj.).

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (3 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

4. The Municipality, Sri Dungargarh (Bikaner) Through Its Executive Officer, National Highway No.11, Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14131/2023

1. The Mission Of Hapiness Foundation, Through Its Proprietor Virendra Kumar Chobisa S/o Khyali Lal Chobisa, Aged 41 Yrs, R/o Amberi, Udaipur.

2. Rudra And Company, Through Its Proprietor Roop Kunwar D/o Chandan Singh Jodha, Aged 33 Years, R/o Balaji Nagar, Mandwara, Sirohi.

3. Shri Ekling Enterprise, Through Its Proprietor Navneet Singh Rao S/o Shambhu Singh Rao, Aged 35 Years, R/o Raomadra, Nandeshma, Udaipur.

4. Shreeji Enterprise, Through Its Proprietor Isha Nehal Vyas W/o Nehal Sureshchandra Vyas, Aged 36 Years,r/o 5-B, Celebration Residency, New Navratan Complex, Opposite Power House, Bhuwana, Udaipur.

5. K.s. Proprietorship, Through Its Proprietor Kamlesh Saini W/o Chamman Lal Saini, Aged 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Tehsil Bansur Bas, Gordhan, Chatarpura, Alwar.

6. Mahalaxmi Foods, Through Its Proprietor Sher Singh S/o Shambhu Singh, Aged 23 Yrs, R/o 441, Rbh Colony, Sector 17, Balicha, South Extension, Savina (Rural), Udaipur.

7. Foundation For Ecological And Environmental Sustainability Trust, Through Its Proprietor Virendra Kumar Chobisa S/o Khyali Lal Chobisa, Aged 41 Yrs, R/o Amberi, Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur.

2. Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

3. Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

4. Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur.

5. District Collector, Jalore.

6. District Collector, Udaipur.

7. District Collector, Rajsamand.

8. District Collector, Bhilwara.

9. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Jalore.

10. Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Udaipur.

11. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Rajsamand.

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (4 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

12. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13296/2023

Gyandeep Public School Samiti 10 Kwd Rawatsar, Through Its Secretary Bhan Singh S/o Revant Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Sanjay Basti, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self-

Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Hanumnagarh

4. The Municipal Council, Hanumangarh District Hanumangrah.

                                                                 ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Narayan Dan.
                                Mr. L.S. Udawat.
                                Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG assisted by
                                Mr. Kunal Upadhyay.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 16/10/2023 & 19/10/2023 Pronounced on 31/10/2023

1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy

though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore,

for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts

and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13973 /2023, while treating the same as

a lead case; thus, the rival submissions of the parties and the

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (5 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

observations of the Court, in the present order, would also be

based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.

1.1. The prayer clauses read as under:

"It is therefore, most humble and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed; and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(a) The order dated 16.08.2023 (Annex-7) passed by the Panchayati Raj Department and the order dated 25.08.2023 (Annex-8) passed by the Municipal Council, Bikaner may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) The respondent authority may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner firm to operate Indira Rasoi on two allotted areas in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2023 (Annex-4) and as per the mandate of the agreement dated 26.05.2023 (Annex-5).

(c) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favorable to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

(d) That the costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. As per the pleaded facts, the Municipal Council, Bikaner

invited applications for Expression Of Interest (EOI) dated

12.04.2023 announcing budget made in regard to Additional 1000

Indira Rasoi and the opening of 74 Rasois for the purpose of

operation in rural area of Nagar Nigam; in pursuance of the same,

the petitioner-Firm applied for the same, which was accepted and

allotment was given to operate Indira Rasoi at two places, vide the

order dated 23.05.2023.

2.1. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order passed by the

Executive Officer, Municipality, Sri Dungargarh on 26.05.2023,

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (6 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

agreements were signed between the respondent - Municipal

Council and the petitioner-Firm. Thereafter, an order dated

26.06.2023 was passed by Directorate, Local Bodies whereby

though the previous operation and monitoring of Indira Rasoi

Scheme (Rural) was done by the Local Self Government, however

now it was to be done by the Rural Development Department, and

operation and monitoring was to be done by the Panchayati Raj

Department. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Panchayati

Raj Department directed the Secretary, Department of Local Self

Government to cancel the tenders so given before as well as the

work orders vide order dated 16.08.2023.

2.2. Thereafter, an office order was passed by the respondent -

Municipal Council on 25.08.2023 cancelling the work orders and

agreements given to all the Firms for the operation of 74 Indira

Rasoi as per the aforesaid EOI and direction was given to return

all the furniture, utensils, computer etc. to the concerned

development officer of the concerned Panchayat Samiti.

2.3. Thus being aggrieved of the orders dated 16.08.2023 and

25.08.2023, the present petition has been preferred claiming the

afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

impugned orders were passed without due application of mind, as

no cogent and justifiable reason was assigned for cancellation of

the allotment as well as the agreement for the 74 Indira Rasoi(s).

Also, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing

before the cancellation of allotment and agreement vide the

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (7 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

impugned orders, and thus, such action on part of the

respondents is against the principles of natural justice.

3.1. It was further submitted that the allotment of Indira Rasoi

was done strictly in accordance with law, not only that but the

contract was binding upon the respondents as well, thus, the

action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment as well as the

agreement is not justified in the eye of law; further vide order

16.08.2023, the task of operating Indira Rasoi was arbitrarily

given in favour of women's self help group registered under

Rajivika.

3.2. It was also submitted that vide order dated 29.08.2023, the

respondent department had amended its earlier guidelines dated

16.08.2023 whereby earlier only those organizations who had

welfare and social service as their prime motive were to be given

management of the Rasoi, and selection was to be done in a

transparent manner, as the same would be advertised; however

after the amendment the district level committee had been given

the sole power of selection.

3.3. It was further submitted that the interested participant(s)

had been directed to operate Rasoi(s) as soon as possible and in

pursuance of the same, the petitioners had recruited the staff,

inspected the premises, done necessary work with regard to

electricity pipelines, EMD amount, and after all this work, the

respondent had decided to terminate the entire process.

3.4. Learned counsel, in support of such submissions, placed

reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the cases of M.P. Power Management Company Limited v.

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (8 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

M/s. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited &

Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8515-8516 of 2022 decided on

16.11.2022) and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.

(Civil Appeal No. 3498 OF 2020, decided on 16.10.2020).

4. On the other hand Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional

Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kunal Upadhyay, appearing for

the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the respondent-State

had floated the Indira Rasoi Yojana to provide nutritious food to

the needful at a bare minimum amount of Rs.8/- and in pursuance

of the same, the EOI was invited and the petitioners entered into

an agreement with the respondents; however, the date of

commencement of the work was not prescribed by the department

concerned.

4.1. It was further submitted that the purpose of the said yojana

was to provide nutritious food at the minimum cost, thus where

the purpose itself was ensuring availability of food to the needy,

no financial loss was caused to the petitioners; in furtherance, all

the furniture, fixtures, utensils, computer etc. were provided to

the petitioners by the department itself, and thus, under such

circumstances, no investment had been made by the petitioners,

while establishing the Indira Rasoi Units; consequently, no loss

was suffered due to the termination of the agreements in

question.

4.2. It was also submitted that the Department took the decision

to run the Indira Rasoi Units through SHG run by the women in

order to empower women & SHG, and accordingly, the

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (9 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

agreements with 74 Indira Rasoi Vendors came to be terminated,

in view of the policy decision taken by the Department, looking

into the larger public interest, i.e. women empowerment.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. This Court observes that the respondents invited applications

for the aforesaid EOI for opening of 74 Rasoi in pursuance of

Indira Rasoi Yojana, and for the same, the petitioners applied

therefor, followed by its acceptance; whereafter an agreement was

entered into between the petitioners and the respondent and the

allotments in question were made accordingly; however by the

impugned orders, the allotments as well as the agreements were

terminated.

7. This Court further observes that the very purpose of

introducing the said Yojana was to provide nutritious food to the

needful at a bare minimum amount of Rs.8/- and the said work

was to be taken for the purpose of doing charity and help, and not

to achieve the object of profit-making, thus, though the allotments

and agreements were made in favour of the petitioners, however

the date for commencement of the said work was never

prescribed; further, the equipments necessary for operating these

Rasoi(s) were provided by the respondent department itself, thus

there arose no investment on part of the petitioners;

consequently, the question of financial loss does not arise.

7.1. In furtherance, the EOI itself and the terms and conditions of

operation of the Rasois under the Indira Rasoi Yojana clearly

provided the intention behind introducing the said yojana; the

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (10 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

relevant portion of the EOI in question is reproduced as

hereunder:

"ekuuh; eq[;ea=h egksn;] jktLFkku ljdkj ds ladYi "dksbZ Hkw[kk u lks;s" dks lkdkj djus ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk izns"k ds lHkkh uxjh; fudk;ksa essa bfUnjk jlksbZ ;kstuk fnukad 20-08-2020 ls "kq: dh tk jgh gSA ;kstuk ds lapkyu dk ewy mÌs"; U;wure ykxr ij t:jrean vketu dks lsokHkko ds vk/kkj ij Hkkstu miyC/k djkuk gS A vr% O;oklkf;d fgr ds LFkku ij lsokHkko ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z djus ds bPNqd izfrf'Br xSj "kkldh; @ /kkfeZd @ Lo;alsoh dY;k.kdkjh laLFkk @ lgdkjh laLFkk @ QeZ @ dkWiksZjsV @ LFkkuh; Lo;a lgk;rk lewg @ {ks= Lrjh; la?k @uxj Lrjh; la?k dks jlksbZ;ksa ds lapkyu gsrq jkT; ds lHkkh uxjh; fudk;ksa esa lwphc) (Empanel) ,oa p;u djus gsrq fnukad 10-08-2020 rd vfHk:fp dh vfHkO;fDr (EoI) vkeaf=r dh tkrh gSA uxjh; fudk;okj jlksbZ;ksa dh la[;k foLr`r fooj.k EoI esa miyC/k gS A izR;sd jlksbZ gsrq vkosnu i= vyx&vyx izLrqr djuk gksxk A bPNqd vkosnd lacaf/kr ftyk eq[;ky; dh uxj fudk; (uxj fuxe @ ifj'kn) esa viuk vkosnu izLrqr djsxk A foLr`r vfHk:fp dh vfHkO;fDr (EoI) rFkk ;kstuk ds fn"kk&funsZ"k (xkbZMykbZu) uxj fuxe @ uxjifj'kn @ uxjikfydk dk;kZy; rFkk foHkkx dh osclkbZV www.lsg.urban.rajasthan.gov.in, www.cmar-india.org ls izkIr @ MkmuyksM dh tk ldrh gS A"

The relevant portion of the terms and conditions is also

reproduced as hereunder:

"1. bfUnjk jlksbZ ds lapkyu dk ewy mÌs"; U;wure ykxr ij t:jrean vketu dks lsok vk/kkj ij Hkkstu miyC/k djkuk gS A vr% O;kolkf;d fgr dks ewy vk/kkj uk ekurs gq, dsoy lsokHkko ds vk/kkj ij gh vkosnu fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS A"

[2023:RJ-JD:36562] (11 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

8. This Court also observes that the basic idea behind Self Help

Groups is that a small group of people in rural areas comes

together voluntarily putting forth a common fund to meet the

purpose of the group, and are in general parlance, seen as tools

for achieving goals, such as women empowerment among other

things; further women empowerment equips women to redefine

their role in the society and includes economic empowerment as

well; moreover, Self Help Groups that are completely run by

women are limited in number and in rural areas such groups

become even more scarce in numbers, thus in the opinion of this

Court, the decision taken by the respondent department to run the

Indira Rasoi Units through Self Help Groups run by women in

order to empower women is well reasoned.

9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into

the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a

fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present

petitions.