MAA SARASWATI SHG Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is a Self Help Group (SHG). There was requirement for supply of Chhatua and with reference to letter dtd. 17/7/2018, issued by the Collector and oral order for wholesome inquiry into all units of Pattamundai ICDS, there was inspection and joint report dtd. 31/8/2018 made by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) and the Sub-Collector. He demonstrates from the report that his client was found to be a producing unit having infrastructure facilities available, facilitates available to address emergency as well as hygienic atmosphere. On such findings the CDPO and the Sub-Collector recommended his client. On the same inspection and by the same report it was found that private opposite party no.6, the SHG engaged, was found to not have a producing unit nor facilities available to address emergency nor hygienic atmosphere though infrastructure facilities were available. In the circumstances, view taken by the CDPO and the Sub-Collector in the report was 'not recommended'. He submits, the report was obtained by his client upon making query under Right to Information Act, 2005.

(2.) A few days thereafter on 17/9/2018, the Collector along with District Social Welfare Officer (DSWO), the CDPO and Sub-Collector were said to have again inspected available units for procuring Chhatua. Paragraphs 2 and 3 from the report respectively with reference to his client and opposite party no.6 are extracted and reproduced below.

(3.) Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. He submits, subsequent enquiry was conducted by the Collector along with the DSWO, CDPO and Sub-Collector. On their joint enquiry it was found that private opposite party no.6 was most suitable and hence, selected for supplying THR. It was appreciation of situation on the ground by persons in administration having authority. The decision is not open to judicial review.