Dismissed
Anju Shiksha Samiti v. State of Rajasthan
Rajasthan HCCW/13914/2023
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.…
What the court decided
AI extract
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.…
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:36562]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13914/2023
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.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13203/2023
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.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13364/2023
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.).
----Petitioner
(2 of 11) [CW-13914/2023]
[2023:RJ-JD:36562]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13393/2023
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.).
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13394/2023
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.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13973/2023
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.)
----Petitioner
Versus
(3 of 11)
[2023:RJ-JD:36562]
[CW-13914/2023]
(4 of 11)
[2023:RJ-JD:36562]
[CW-13914/2023]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13296/2023
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.)
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| 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. |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 16/10/2023 & 19/10/2023 Pronounced on 31/10 /2023
(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.
1.1. The prayer clauses read as under:
“It is therefore, most humble and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed; and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(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.
(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).
(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.
(d) That the costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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 .
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.
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.
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 &
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 ).
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.
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.
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:
“ 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
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
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 ”
The relevant portion of the terms and conditions is also reproduced as hereunder:
“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]
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the cancellation of agreement and allotment for operating Indira Rasoi units was based on a change in policy considerations regarding women empowerment.
Whether termination of such an arrangement, for public welfare purposes, warrants granting relief to the petitioners.
Whether the petitioner has suffered financial loss justifying the quashing of the impugned orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anju Shiksha Samiti, Churu
Gitanjali Shikshan Sansthan, Hanumangarh
Govindram Laxminarayan Ladnu
Lal Bahadur Shastri Shiksha Samiti Rawatsar, Hanumangarh
Maa Saraswati Computer Shikshan Sansthan
State Of Rajasthan
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court