Partly allowed

Sahayoga Women'S v. Collector,Bhadrak

Orissa HC7 Oct 2015WP(C)/23826/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the disengagement of a Self Help Group from a Chhatua procurement project. The High Court set aside the disengagement order as it was passed without a hearing and remitted the matter for fresh consideration while directing the clearing of pending bills.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order of disengagement, remitted for fresh consideration after hearing, pending bills to be cleared within four weeks, exercise to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of

This writ petition has been filed by the Sahayoga Womens Self Help Group, Mirzapur in the district of Bhadrak, challenging the order dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure-6), issued by the Di strict Social Welfare Officer, Bhadrak, disengaging the petitioner from preparation and distri bution of THR (Chhatua) under SNP in Tihidi ICDS project for the year 2013-14.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 08.1.2014 (Annexure-3 ), the District Social Welfare Officer, Bhadrak, had selected the petitioner for preparation a nd distribution of THR (Chhatua) under SNP in Tihidi ICDS project for the year 2013-14. It is the case of the petitioner that without any prior notice and opportunity of hearing, the impug ned order dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure-6) has been passed, disengaging the petitioner from prepa ration and distribution of Chhatua in Tihidi ICDS project. This approach of the authority in u nilaterally disengaging the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to them is in gross disregard of the established principles of natural justice and fair play.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that payments in respect of supply of Chhatua already made by them during the year 2013-14 is still outstanding, which is causing serious financial hardship to the petitioner. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to direct o pposite party nos.1 to 3 to pay the pending dues to the petitioner within a stipulated period.

Learned counsel for the State, with reference to the counter affidavit submits that se veral allegations were received against the petitioner for non-supply of THR (Chhatua) to the respective Anganwadi Centres in violation of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. After enquiry, as the allegations were found to be true, the Block Level Committee recommended to th e Collector, Bhadrak, for disengagement of the petitioner and in pursuance of such recommendat ion, the impugned order of disengagement has been passed. It is further submitted that as the petitioner had been engaged for preparation and distribution of Chhatua during the period 2013 -14, which has elapsed in the meantime, no cause of action survives. However, learned counsel for the State fairly concedes that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petition er before passing of the order of disengagement.

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.4 and 5 submits that pursuant to the impugn ed order under Annexure-6, opposite party nos.4 and 5 have been engaged for preparation and di stribution of THR (Chhatua) for the year 2014-15, in place of the petitioner. It is further su bmitted that as the petitioner had been engaged for the year 2013-14 for preparation and distr ibution of Chhatua and the said period having elapsed in the meantime, the present writ petiti on has become infructuous.

Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the fact that the impugned order of disengagement has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, t he same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Bhadrak, who is directe d to consider the same afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The enti re exercise be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the meri ts of the case.

Opposite party nos.1 to 3 are directed to take immediate steps to clear the pending bi lls of the petitioner in respect of the supply of Chhatua already made by them, if there are n o other legal impediments.

Sahayoga Women'S v. Collector,Bhadrak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahayoga Women'S v. Collector,Bhadrak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sabitri Behera

R.M.,Legal,T.P.Claim Cell,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Krushna Ch.Mohapatra

Manager,M/S.New India Assurnace Co.Ltd. Vs Chandrasekhar Jena

Raja Kishore Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Manager,Icici Lombar Vs Sumati Pradhan

Naresh Ch.Nath Vs Kanduri Ch.Bisoi