Maa Tarini Shg,Bonth Vs State of Odisha

“10. The impugned Letter/Order No.73 dated 03.01.2026 vide Annexure-8 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 Bonth 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 indicated/reflected in that Annexure-8.

¶16

11. 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 Bonth 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-8 is remained undisturb.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

It is made clear here that, if in the fresh decision of the Opp. Party No.4 (Collector, Bhadrak), it is found that, there was no reason/cause/basis for the elimination/exclusion of the name of the petitioner-WSHG as the paddy procurement agency for KMC 2025-26 of Bonth Block, then, the petitioner-WSHG is at liberty to claim compensation for unnecessary harassments from the erring persons/officials, those had alleged false and baseless allegations for its elimination.”

¶19

It is apparent from the above quoted observations that the principal relief sought for by the appellant has already been allowed as the order excluding/eliminating the appellant as paddy procurement society/agency of Bonth Block for KMS 2025-26 is quashed and set aside. Since the authorities have flagged certain deficiencies, the liberty was granted to the authorities to proceed by following procedure of law, more particularly adherence of principles of natural justice.

¶20

The appellant challenged the said order as no liberty can be granted by the Court. But, in course of the hearing, it is informed to the Court that in compliance to the said direction, a show-cause notice was issued upon the appellant and in fact the appellant submitted the reply. However, the appellant is not aware of any order having passed by the authority to the proceeding initiated on the basis of the said show-cause notice. Since the appellant has already submitted the reply, the interference with the order becomes unwarranted.

¶21

Since no right has been adjudicated as such, we do not find any justification in interfering with the impugned judgment in the instant writ appeal. We simply observe that the authority shall communicate the decision taken on the basis of the said show-cause notice to the appellant at the earliest, in the event the same has already been taken. If the authority has not taken any decision, it is

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

requested to take a decision within two weeks from the date of communication of this order and it goes without saying that the said order shall be communicated to the appellant immediately.

¶24

With the aforesaid order, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

¶25

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶26

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶27

MRS/Laxmikant

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Mar-2026 12:24:01

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Maa Tarini Shg,Bonth v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maa Tarini Shg,Bonth v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Mallick Vs Commissioner of Ct and Gst,Cuttack

M/S.Ratna Vegetable and Co.,Baragarh Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax(C.T.) and Goods and Services Tax(G.S.T), Cuttack

M/S Sekh Hasibul Rahman Vs the Commissioner, Cgst, Cx and Customs

Abhaya Kumar Swain Vs Superintendent of Police, Puri

Rami Digal Vs State of Odisha

Panchu Nayak Vs State of Odisha