LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-25

SIDHESWAR MAHILA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

Decided On January 28, 2020
Sidheswar Mahila Mandal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by way of this writ petition, seek to quash order dated 31.07.2019 in Annexure-5 disengaging petitioner no.1-Self Help Group (SHG) and blacklisting it for a period of five years by forfeiting the security deposits, on the ground that the same was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the opposite party no.1 issued guidelines for the decentralized implementation of Take Home Ration (THR), which is a supplementary nutrition programme of ICDS, vide Annexure-2. As per the said guidelines, the THR is to be given to pregnant and lactating mothers, children from 6 months to 3 years, as they do not attend the AWC (Anganwadi Centre) on a daily basis. The severely malnourished children of 3 to 6 years are to be given THR over and above Hot Cooked Meal. The Government of India has fixed the per beneficiary cost, calorie and protein norm to be maintained across the States. The Government of Odisha has taken an in-principle decision to give Ready to Eat (RTE) i.e wheat-based Chhatua in the form of THR to all eligible beneficiaries as it will ensure that it goes to the intended beneficiary and not entered the family kitty. The guidelines shall be applicable universally throughout the State. While implementing the guidelines, various aspects should be taken into consideration as mentioned therein. For implementation of the procedure, the Government of India supplies wheat at a subsidized rate, hence wheat based Chhatua will be prepared by SHG(s) and the ration entitlement and packaging thereof has also been indicated along with financial guidelines for decentralized procurement for THR. In Clause-5 the quality parameters have been provided. In Clause-6, it has been stipulated that a contract should be signed between the CDPO and the SHG(s) laying down the terms and conditions of preparation and supply. Normally, the contract should be for a period of one year only. Before the end of one year, a review of the SHG(s) performance should be made by the Collector after which a decision can be taken to either renew or rescind the contract. A security deposit of 1% of the total value of production per month should be taken from the SHG(s) and kept with the CDPO and returned on termination of the contract. This should, however, be seized in case of action as mentioned therein against the SHG(s).

(3.) Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence contending that since the petitioner no.1's performance was satisfactory, its contract period was extended till 31.03.2020. During subsistence of such contract period, on the basis of the analysis report dated 09.07.2019 action has been taken on 31.07.2019 in Annexure-5 blacklisting petitioner no.1- SHG for a period of five years by forfeiting the security deposit and lodging FIR as per the guidelines. It is contended that the sample, which was received on 07.03.2019 was never received from petitioner no.1-SHG. As such, the analysis report of Chhatua sample submitted on 09.07.2019 alleging fungal growth cannot have any justification in view of Clause-5 of Rule 24.2 of the Rules governing the field. The action taken by opposite party no.5 in Annexure-5 dated 31.07.2019 is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, seeks for interference of this Court.