Orissa HC upholds state’s policy on paddy procurement, junks petition of WSHGs

The Orissa High Court has declined to interfere with the state government’s decision to exclude certain women’s self-help groups (WSHGs) from the paddy procurement process for the 2025-26 season, holding that no vested or statutory right had accrued in their favour.

The ruling came recently on a batch of 13 petitions filed by WSHGs from Sonepur district, who claimed they were arbitrarily excluded despite having been selected in 2019 through an open expression of interest (EOI) and had since been engaged continuously in kharif and rabi procurement.

The petitions challenged the decision of the authorities to restrict procurement operations exclusively to Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) in certain blocks, allegedly without assigning reasons or granting an opportunity of hearing.

The procurement is carried out through the Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation (OSCSC).

Disposing of the petitions, Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed, “It cannot be disputed that the engagement of WSHGs under the 2019 guidelines is administrative and a matter of policy of the state. The guidelines, being executive instructions, did not confer any indefeasible or vested right on WSHGs to continue indefinitely.”

Justice Mishra noted that from 2019 to 2024, the state had uniformly continued the same WSHGs without issuing fresh EOIs and that this practice was never challenged. “Mere deviation from a procedural prescription in an executive guideline, in the absence of demonstrable arbitrariness, malafides or violation of statutory provisions does not render the action of the state illegal,” he said,

Referring to the state’s decision in July 2024 to conduct a districtwise performance review, Justice Mishra held that the subsequent classification allowing WSHGs with satisfactory performance to continue, preferring PACS where required, and issuing EOIs only in areas with reported mismanagement had a clear nexus with efficient procurement and did not violate Article 14.

However, Justice Mishra made an important observation, urging the government to consider, at the policy level, providing adequate opportunities to new WSHGs and even those earlier debarred due to mismanagement in future procurement years, consistent with the objectives of women empowerment, efficiency and transparency.

On the plea of violation of natural justice, the court ruled that individual notices or hearings were not mandatory. The disengagement was neither punitive nor stigmatic and no blacklisting or civil disability was imposed. “In such circumstances, insistence on individual show cause notices or personal hearings cannot be treated as mandatory,” the order said.

This article has been republished from The New Indian Express.