Court set aside orders reducing the petitioner's area of operation for THR distribution without an opportunity of hearing. Matter remitted to Collector to consider afresh after hearing parties.
Impugned orders set aside; matter remitted to Collector, Bhadrak to consider afresh after giving opportunity of hearing; exercise to be completed within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) NO.10277 of 2015 08.4.2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.5.2015 (Annexure-8), p
assed by the Collector, Bhadrak, approving a new Women Self Help Group (opposite party no.5) f
or preparation and distribution of THR (Chhatua), under SNP for the year 2015-16, in addition
to the petitioners Self Help Group. The petitioner also assails the order dated 26.5.2015 (An
nexure-9), passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Chandbali-1, reducing the allotted
area of the petitioners Self Help Group for preparation and distribution of THR (Chhatua) und
er SNP for the year 2015-16, under ICDS, Chandbali-I, from 18 Gram Panchayats to 03 Gram Panch
ayats and allotting the remaining 15 Gram Panchayats in favour of opposite party no.5.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners Self Help Group has been involved
in preparation and distribution of THR (Chhatua) under SNP/SABALA feeding programme since 201
1 in respect of 18 Gram Panchayats. The performance of the petitioner having been found to be
satisfactory, the agreement entered into with the petitioners Self Help Group for preparation
and distribution of THR (Chhatua) in the 18 Gram Panchayats was renewed for the year 2014-15.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though there was no allegations against the pet
itioners Self Help Group with regard to the preparation and distribution of THR (Chhatua) in t
he 18 allotted Gram Panchayats of ICDS Project-1, the Block Level Selection Committee, while c
onsidering the renewal of agreement entered into with the petitioner of the subsequent year 20
15-16, made a recommendation in favour of opposite party no.5 in gross violation of the Govern
ment guidelines. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to such recommendation, the C
ollector, Bhadrak, by the impugned order dated 25.5.2015, has reduced the area of supply of th
e petitioner from 18 Gram Panchayats to 03 Gram Panchayats, allotting the balance 15 Gram Panc
hayats in favour of opposite party no.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid action of the Block Level
Selection Committee and the subsequent decision of the Collector, Bhadrak, is based on extran
eous consideration and is contrary to the guidelines prescribed by the State Government. In t
his regard, a reference has been made to the letter of Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Governmen
t, Women & Child Development Department, dated 08.6.2012 (Annexure-10), under which all the Co
llectors were instructed that unless a Self Help Group is found to have been supplying substan
dard chhatua or not conforming to the Government guidelines of Chhatua processing, there is no
need to replace that Self Help Group.
It is accordingly submitted that as there was no complaint against the petitioner, the
Collector was not justified in reducing the area of operation of the petitioner from 18 Gram P
anchayats to 03 Gram Panchayats and allotting the remaining 15 Gram Panchayats in favour of a
new Self Help Group like opposite party no.5. It is further submitted that reducing the area
of operation has been effected without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, reliance has been pl
aced on a decision of this Court in Astha Federation, Basta v. State of Orissa, 2016(1) O.J.R.
(109).
Learned counsel for the State while referring to the counter affidavit filed by opposit
e party nos.2, 3 and 4, submits that 15 Gram Panchayats from Chandbali-I ICDS Project have bee
n allotted to opposite party no.5 keeping 12 Gram Panchayats with the petitioner so far as IC
DS Project Chandbali-II is concerned. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the petitioner
s area of supply has been reduced from 18 Gram Panchayats to 03 Gram Panchayats. It is further
submitted that as several complaints were received from the affected persons of Gram Panchaya
ts under Chandbali-I ICDS Project, with regard to the irregular distribution of Chhatua, a dec
ision was taken to curtail the area of operation of the petitioners Self Help Group and 15 Gra
m Panchayts have been allotted to opposite party no.5, to ensure prompt supply of THR (Chhatua
) to the people. It is further submitted that decision to allot 15 Gram Panchayats to the opp
osite party no.5 is strictly in conformity with the Government guidelines and in public intere
st.
However, learned counsel for the State fairly concedes that no formal opportunity of he
aring has been afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned orders, reducing the
allotted area from 18 to 03 Gram Panchayats and allotting the remaining 15 Gram Panchayats to
the opposite party no.5.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.5 while referring to the Government guidelines is
sued by the Women & Child Development Department, for the decentralized implementation of Take
Home Ration (THR), submits that in order to ensure prompt supply of Chhatua, a decision has b
een taken to assign 15 Gram Panchayats to the opposite party no.5, which cannot be faulted.
Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the fact that the impugned orders
reducing the area of operation of the petitioners Self Help Group from 18 Gram Panchayats to 0
3 Gram Panchayats and allotting the remaining 15 Gram Panchayats in favour of a new Self Help
Group (opposite party no.5) has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, the same are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Bhadrak,
who shall consider the same afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The
entire exercise be completed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of t
his order.
The existing arrangement with regard to preparation and supply of Chhatua shall continu e till the decision is taken in the matter by the Collector, Bhadrak. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit s of the claims made by the parties. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Free copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State for complia nce.4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Collector could reduce the petitioner's area of operation without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Whether the reduction of the petitioner's area of operation was in violation of Government guidelines regarding replacement of Self Help Groups.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Astha Federation, Basta v. State of OrissaExplained¶6
Astha Federation, Basta v. State of Orissa, 2016(1) O.J.R. (109)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner's Self Help Group
Collector, Bhadrak
Child Development Project Officer, Chandbali-1
Opposite Party No.5
State of Orissa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court