Dismissed

Gyandeep Public School Samiti 10 Kwd Rawatsar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC31 Oct 2023CW/13296/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed petitions challenging cancellation of work orders for Indira Rasoi operations. Court held scheme aimed at charity, equipment provided by State, no investment made, and termination for women empowerment via SHGs was well-reasoned.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; orders quashing cancellation and directing operation do not lie; applications disposed of.

Gyandeep Public School Samiti 10 Kwd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13914/2023

¶4

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.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

The District Collector, Bikaner.

¶10

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation District Bikaner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13203/2023

¶14

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.).

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

The District Collector, Hanumangarh.

¶20

The Municipal Council, Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13364/2023

¶23

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.).

¶24

----Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

The District Collector, Bikaner.

¶29

(2 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]

¶30

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

¶31

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation District Bikaner.

¶32

----Respondents

¶33

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13393/2023

¶34

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.).

¶35

----Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

The District Collector, Hanumangarh. 4. The Municipal Council Haumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13394/2023

¶42

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.).

¶43

----Petitioner

¶44

Versus

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

The District Collector, Hanumangarh.

¶48

The Municipal Council, Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.

¶49

----Respondents

¶50

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13973/2023

¶51

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.)

¶52

----Petitioner

¶53

Versus

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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

(3 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

[CW-13914/2023]

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

¶61

----Respondents

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

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.

¶67

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.

¶68

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.

¶69

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.

¶70

----Petitioners

¶71

Versus

¶72

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

¶73

Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

¶74

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

¶75

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

¶76

District Collector, Jalore.

¶77

District Collector, Udaipur.

¶78

District Collector, Rajsamand.

¶79

District Collector, Bhilwara.

¶80

Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Jalore.

¶81

Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Udaipur.

¶82

Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Rajsamand.

(4 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

[CW-13914/2023]

Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara.

¶87

----Respondents

¶88

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

¶89

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.)

¶90

----Petitioner

¶91

Versus

¶92

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

¶93

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

¶94

The District Collector, Hanumnagarh

¶95

The Municipal Council, Hanumangarh District Hanumangrah.

¶96

----Respondents

¶97

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

¶98

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶99

Judgment

¶100

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

¶101

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

(5 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

[CW-13914/2023]

observations of the Court, in the present order, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.

¶106

1.1. The prayer clauses read as under:

¶107

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

¶108

(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.

¶109

(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).

¶110

(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.

¶111

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

¶112

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.

¶113

2.1. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order passed by the Executive Officer, Municipality, Sri Dungargarh on 26.05.2023,

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

[CW-13914/2023]

(6 of 11)

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.

¶118

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.

¶119

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.

¶120

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

[CW-13914/2023]

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

(7 of 11)

impugned orders, and thus, such action on part of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice.

¶125

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 .

¶126

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.

¶127

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.

¶128

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.

(8 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

[CW-13914/2023]

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

¶133

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 ).

¶134

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.

¶135

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.

¶136

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

(9 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

[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.

¶141

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

¶142

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.

¶143

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.

¶144

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

(10 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

[CW-13914/2023]

relevant portion of the EOI in question is reproduced as hereunder:

¶149

“ 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 ea bfUnjk jlksbZ ;kstuk fnukad 20-08-2020 ls s “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

¶150

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 ) es viuk vkosnu izLrqr djsxk A a

¶151

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 ”

¶152

The relevant portion of the terms and conditions is also reproduced as hereunder:

¶153

“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 ”

(11 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JD:36562]

[CW-13914/2023]

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.

¶158

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.

¶159

The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners also do not render any assistance to their case.

¶160

Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶161

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶162

SKant/-

Gyandeep Public School Samiti 10 Kwd Rawatsar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyandeep Public School Samiti 10 Kwd Rawatsar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Das Vs State of Rajasthan

Tejpal Vs Union of India

Anju Shiksha Samiti Vs State of Rajasthan

Gitanjali Shikshan Sansthan Vs State of Rajasthan

Govindram Laxminarayan Ladnu Vs State of Rajasthan