Maa Subhalaxmi Shg, Subarnapur Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) Nos.29405, 29524, 29527, 29533, 29536, 29581, 29582, 29583,

¶3

29717, 29720, 29724, 30120, 30156, 30157, 30158, 30163, 30857, 30878, 31143, 31716, 31736, 32003 and 32880 of 2024

¶4

Maa Ashuragadian Women Self Help …. Petitioner Group, Subarnapur (in W.P.(C) No.29405 of 2024)

¶5

Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Maa Maheswari Women Self Help …. Petitioner Group, Subarnapur (in W.P.(C) No.29524 of 2024)

¶8

Mr. Shibani Shankar Pradhan, Advocate

¶9

-versus-

¶10

State of Odisha and others Maa Bhabani Self Help Group, Subarnapur

¶11

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶12

(in W.P.(C) No.29527 of 2024)

¶13

Mr. Shibani Shankar Pradhan, Advocate

¶14

-versus-

¶15

State of Odisha and others

¶16

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶17

Aparna Self Help Group, Subarnapur (in W.P.(C) No.29533 of 2024)

¶18

Mr. Shibani Shankar Pradhan, Advocate

¶19

-versus-

¶20

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Mahalaxmi Shaktidal Self Help Group, …. Petitioner Subarnapur (in W.P.(C) No.29536 of 2024)

¶21

Mr. Shibani Shankar Pradhan, Advocate

¶22

Page 1 of 12

¶23

-versus-

¶24

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Laxmi Narayan Women Self Help …. Petitioner Group, Subarnapur (in W.P.(C) No.29581 of 2024)

¶25

Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

¶26

-versus-

¶27

State of Odisha and others OM Shiva Shakti Women Self Help Group, Subarnapur (in W.P.(C) No.29582 of 2024)

¶28

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶29

Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

¶30

-versus-

¶31

State of Odisha and others

¶32

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶33

Samaleswari Women Self Help Group, Subarnapur (in W.P.(C) No.29583 of 2024)

¶34

Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

¶35

-versus-

¶36

State of Odisha and others

¶37

Maa Biraja WSHG, Subarnapur (in W.P.(C) No.29717 of 2024)

¶38

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶39

Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate along with Ms. Kabita Patra , Advocate and Mr. S.K. Acharya, Advocate and Mr. S.R. Mohanty, Advocate

¶40

-versus-

¶41

State of Odisha and others Uma Maheswari WSHG, Subarnapur (in W.P.(C) No.29720 of 2024)

¶42

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶43

Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate along with Ms. Kabita Patra , Advocate and Mr. S.K. Acharya,

¶44

Page 2 of 12

¶45

Advocate and Mr. S.R. Mohanty, Advocate

¶46

-versus-

¶47

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Baba Sidheswar WSHG, Subarnapur …. Petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.29724 of 2024)

¶48

Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate along with Ms. Kabita Patra , Advocate and Mr. S.K. Acharya, Advocate and Mr. S.R. Mohanty, Advocate

¶49

-versus-

¶50

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Annapurna Sahu …. Petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.30120 of 2024)

¶51

Mr. Bhojaraj Seth, Advocate

¶52

-versus-

¶53

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Sebati Barik …. Petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.30156 of 2024)

¶54

Mr. Bhojraj Seth, Advocate

¶55

-versus-

¶56

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Nalini Hota …. Petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.30157 of 2024) Mr. Bhojraj Seth, Advocate

¶57

-versus-

¶58

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Sakita Bhoi …. Petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.30158 of 2024) Mr. Bhojaraj Seth, Advocate

¶59

-versus-

¶60

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA

¶61

Page 3 of 12

¶62

Bharati Mahakur …. Petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.30163 of 2024)

¶63

Mr. Bhojaraj Seth, Advocate

¶64

-versus-

¶65

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Ananta Gopal SHG, Bhadrak …. Petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.30857 of 2024)

¶66

Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate

¶67

-versus-

¶68

State of Odisha and others

¶69

Maa Rangamahal WSHG, Bhadrak (in W.P.(C) No.30878 of 2024)

¶70

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶71

Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate

¶72

-versus-

¶73

State of Odisha and others

¶74

Maa Budhijagulai SHG, Bhadrak (in W.P.(C) No.31143 of 2024)

¶75

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶76

Mr. Sabyasachi Mishra, Advocate

¶77

-versus-

¶78

State of Odisha and others

¶79

…. Opposite Parties

¶80

Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶81

Laxmi Narayan Mission Shakti Self Help Group (Laxminarayan MS SHG) (in W.P.(C) No.31716 of 2024)

¶82

Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate

¶83

-versus-

¶84

State of Odisha and others

¶85

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA …. Petitioner

¶86

Nabin Kiran Women Self Help Group (in W.P.(C) No.31736 of 2024)

¶87

Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate

¶88

-versus-

¶89

State of Odisha and others

¶90

…. Opposite Parties

¶91

Page 4 of 12

¶92

Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Secretary, Jaga Kalia Shakti WSHG, …. Petitioner Bhadrak (in W.P.(C) No.32003 of 2024)

¶93

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Das, Advocate

¶94

-versus-

¶95

State of Odisha and others

¶96

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA Maa Subhalaxmi SHG, Subarnapur …. Petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.32880 of 2024)

¶97

Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate along with Ms. Kabita Patra , Advocate and Mr. S.K. Acharya, Advocate and Mr. S.R. Mohanty, Advocate

¶98

-versus-

¶99

State of Odisha and others

¶100

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA

CORAM:

Order No.

04.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 10.03.2025

¶105

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶106

Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.32880 of 2024 pressed into the service guidelines circulated vide Letter bearing No.13820-FSCW-PLPRC-0037-2016, dated 12.09.2019 issued by the Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department, by virtue of which any Gram Panchayat if not represented by PACS/LAMPCS, WSHG/SHG Federations can be appointed to procure paddy in that Gram Panchayat on behalf of the Odisha State Civil Supply Corporation Limited. Since the Petitioner was selected and given training and also allotted Mandi in the month of November, 2024 on a specious

¶107

Page 5 of 12

¶108

plea of poor performance of the Petitioner its selection could not have been cancelled.

¶109

Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner referring to Annexure-A/4, i.e ., Letter dated 25.10.2024 of Food, Supplies & Consumer Welfare Department bearing Paddy Procurement Policy for the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 202425, as enclosed to the counter affidavit of the Opposite Parties, laid emphasis on Paragraph-9 of the said Policy, which stipulated as follows:-

¶110

“ 9. Procurement Period : Paddy (Kharif Crop) will be procured within the period from 1.11.2024 to 31.3.2025. Paddy (Rabi Crop) will be procured within the period from 1.5.2025 to 30.6.2025. Districts will schedule their procurement period within these broad timelines. The last date for delivery of CMR of paddy (Kharif/Rabi Crop) will be as per the timelines fixed by Government of India. However, considering factors that call for early recovery of CMR from Custom Millers, FS & CW Department is authorized to reschedule such timeline for delivery of CMR.”

¶111

3.1. He submitted that since the procurement period started from 01.11.2024 and would end on 31.03.2025, the Petitioner could not have been debarred from participating on the plea of poor performance. He referring to date chart submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate in W.P.(C) No.30857 of 2024 ( Ananta Gopal SHG, Bhadrak vs. State of Odisha and others ) contended that the Training Programme for KMS 2024-2025 was

¶112

Page 6 of 12

¶113

scheduled on 06.07.2024 and it is admitted by the Opposite Parties that the Training of WSHG/SHG Federation was complete and Registration of famers did commence. He, therefore, drew attention of this Court to the minutes of the District Level Paddy Procurement Committee (DPC) held on 14.11.2024, whereby certain WSHG were debarred from participating in the procurement process, which was signed by the Members on 27.11.2024 as evident from Annexures appended thereto.

¶114

3.2. He further submitted that the Paddy Procurement had already commenced from 01.11.2024 in terms of the Guidelines. He essentially submitted after being selected without bringing to notice adverse material against the SHG/WSHG, no decision debarring such WSHG/SHG can be held to be valid.

¶115

3.3. He drew attention of this Court to the order dated 12.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.30857 of 2024 submitted that pursuant to the said interim order of this Court, the Petitioner was allowed to participate in the selection process. The said order is extracted hereunder:-

¶116

“2. Though the matter was not on board, on being mentioned by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, showing urgency, the matter is taken up vide a special notice.

¶117

3. Heard Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who, drawing attention of this Court to Clause-xiii, under the heading “Decision taken unanimously in the DLPC”, of the Minutes of the District Level Paddy Procurement Committee (DLPC)

¶118

Page 7 of 12

¶119

dated 14.11.2024, as at Annexure-5, submits that the Petitioner WSHG was operating as Paddy Procurement Agent (PPA), so far as Kaupur Gram Panchayat is concerned. In view of such decision, only engagement of new PACS/WSHGs is permissible, so far as vacant or new areas are concerned.

¶120

4. Mr. Dalai further submits, since the Petitioner WSHG was operating as PPA for Kharif 2023-24, so far as Kaupur PPC is concerned, there should not have been any proposal for engagement of new PACS/WSHG for the said PPC.

¶121

5. Mrs. Padhi, learned ASC for the State accepts notice on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 4 to 6 and admits to have received copy of the Writ Petition with I.A. and prays for a short adjournment to take instruction so far as interim prayer is concerned.

¶122

6. Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, the Petitioner has no grievance or prayer against the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3-The Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation (OSCSC). Hence, at present, no notice need be issued to the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3.

¶123

7. As an interim measure it is directed that the Petitioner WSHG, which was entrusted with paddy procurement job for the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2023-24, shall be permitted to participate in the selection process in terms of advertisement dated

¶124

Page 8 of 12

¶125

30.11.2024 made by the DSWO, Bhadrak. However, no decision shall be taken for engagement of new PACS/WSHGs, so far as Kaupur PPC is concerned, till the next date.

¶126

8. The matter be listed on 23rd December, 2024.

¶127

9. Learned Counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the authority concerned to act in terms of the observation made above.

¶128

10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted in course of the day.

¶129

11. Apart from the same, in view of the urgency shown, parties are at liberty to utilize the digitally signed copy of this order, available in the website of this Court, for the purpose of communication to the concerned authority.

¶130

12. At this stage, it is submitted at the Bar that though similar applications with similar prayers by similarly placed WSHGS have been filed, but the same could not be listed today, despite moving before the Registry. Hence, it is made clear that on production of website copy of this order along with the Writ Petition, the authority concerned shall also allow the similarly placed WSHGs to participate in the process of selection pursuant to advertisement dated 30.11.2024, those who have already approached this Court with similar prayer, as has been made in the present Writ Petition.”

¶131

Page 9 of 12

¶132

At this stage, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties in the batch of cases referred to the additional affidavit dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.33267 of 2024, wherein the following was affirmed:-

¶133

“3. That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 24.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.29524 of 2024 (Maa Maheswari Women Self Help Group, Subarnapur), wherein the Hon’ble Court clarified/directed that the State Authority shall procure paddy from the farmers for Khariff 2024-25 through PACS only so far as the concerned Paddy Procurement Centres (PPC), which are the subject matter of the pending writ petition.

¶134

4. That in obedience to the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court, it is humbly submitted that the farmers of the Rambhila Gram Panchayat and Charampa Gram Panchayat are selling their paddies through Charampa PACS and the process of the paddy procurement is in progress.”

¶135

4.1. He also referred to the Additional Affidavit dated 11.02.2025 filed in the aforesaid case, wherein paragraphs-3 & 4 reveals as follows:-

¶136

“3. That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the abovementioned writ petition wherein the Hon’ble Court directed to obtain further instruction whether the procurement of paddy through Primary Agriculture Co-operative Societies is restricted to KMS 2024-25 only.

¶137

Page 10 of 12

¶138

4. That in obedience to the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court, it is humbly submitted that basing upon the principles provisioned in Food & Procurement Policy of the Government, the District Procurement Committee finalizes the action plan for smooth Paddy Procurement Operation in the District. As such, in pursuance of the Clause-2.1 & 2.6 of the Food & Procurement Policy for the KMS 2024-25, Primary Agriculture Co-operative Societies (PACS) have been enrolled under Paddy Procurement Operation for the KMS 2024-25 only.”

¶139

4.2. He submitted that since the Paddy Procurement in the State is at the fag end, adjudication of questions raised in the present batch of cases would not enure to the benefit of none of the parties vis-à-vis interest of citizens/famers.

¶140

Perused the record and considered the material enclosed to different writ petitions. Since the Opposite Parties by way of affidavit, as relied on by the learned Additional Government Advocate, asserted that the steps taken to debar the SHG/WSHG is related to operation of paddy procurement for KMS No.2024-25 only, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties shall act pragmatically without being influenced by the decisions taken to debar the SHG/WSHG for KMS 2024-25. In the interest of justice it may deserve to be noted that in view of affidavit, for the future procurement, such debarment may not be hurdle for consideration of such SHG/WSHG to take part as it could not be

¶141

Page 11 of 12

¶142

placed on record by the opposite parties that the adverse material, if any, against the petitioner was confronted to it.

¶143

Needless to observe that the evaluation for performance for KMS 2024-25 shall not cause any prejudice to none of the parties in the present batch of the writ petitions.

¶144

In the event, in future Paddy Procurement, if any deficiency is found while evaluation of performance of the SHG/WSHG, the same is required to be put to the notice calling for explanation. Only after affording reasonable opportunity to the affected party concerned, the Opposite Parties may act upon such material.

¶145

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of with liberty to participated in the future procurement, if policy so permits.

¶146

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶147

Laxmikant

¶148

Signature Not Verified

¶149

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Mar-2025 18:01:13

¶150

Page 12 of 12

Maa Subhalaxmi Shg, Subarnapur v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maa Subhalaxmi Shg, Subarnapur v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanna Kumar Khuntia Vs Santosh Kumar Swain

Satura @ Satrughana Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Satyanarayan Panda Vs Cgm,State Bank of India

Charampa Pacs (Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society), Bhadrak Vs State of Odisha

Nabin Kiran Women Self Help Group, Bhadrak Vs State of Odisha

Gujidarada Service Co. Operative Society, Bhadrak Vs State of Odisha