SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 554

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
Bajarangbali WSHG, Basudevpur, represented through its Secretary Mangalata Biswal & Another - Petitioner 
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opposite Parties
WP(C) No.663 of 2026
Decided On : 19-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel, Mr. S.K. Baral, Adv.

Exclusion of a party from a procurement process without a hearing violates principles of natural justice and renders the action illegal.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition challenging exclusion from procurement list - Petitioner-WSHG selected as paddy procurement society for KMS 2025-26 - Exclusion was arbitrary and illegal, lacking opportunity for a hearing. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 10)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Denial of fair hearing by excluding petitioner from procurement list without justification - Rights were created in favor of petitioner as a selected agency; absence of opportunity to be heard rendered the action unsustainable. (Paras 6, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was selected for paddy procurement, completed requisite training, and was included in the final list, but was suddenly excluded by an Office Order without a hearing, impacting its operational capability. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The Court found merit in allowing the petition due to the violation of principles of natural justice in the exclusion process. The impugned order excluding the petitioner was quashed, with directions for a fresh consideration post-hearing. (Paras 9, 10)

Issues: The court addressed whether the exclusion of the petitioner from the procurement list violated principles of natural justice and if there was justification for such exclusion. (Paras 1, 4, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that eliminating the petitioner without a chance to present its case constituted a violation of natural justice, emphasizing the requirement for fair procedural conduct in administrative actions. (Paras 6, 10)

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner selected as paddy procurement agency. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5)
2. counsel for all parties heard. (Para 3)
3. right to be heard before exclusion emphasized. (Para 6)
4. writ petition allowed; exclusion quashed. (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
5. case disposed with fresh decision directive. (Para 8 , 11)

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the Office Order dated 03.01.2026 under Annexure-1 issued by the Collector, Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.3) relating to the exclusion of the name of the petitioner-WSHG from the Annexure-8 as a society/agency for the procurement of paddy of Kharif Marketing Season 2025-26 and to declare the action of the Opp. Parties relating to the exclusion of the name of the petitioner for the procurement of paddy for KMS 2025-26 as arbitrary and illegal and to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to allow the petitioner- WSHG to procure Paddy for KMS 2025-2026 in accordance with the notified policy along with other reliefs, to which, the petitioner-WSHG is entitled for.

2. The case of the petitioner-WSHG is that, as per the decision of the District Level Paddy Procurement Committee (DLPC) for KMS 2025-26, the petitioner-WSHG was selected as a paddy procurement society/agency of Basudevpur Block. Thereafter, as per the order issued by the Collector, Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.4), a training programme was conducted and in such training programme, the members of the petitioner- WSHG successfully completed their training and demonstrated their preparedness to procure paddy in compliances with the policy frameworks. Thereafter, the authorities distributed paddy procurement equipments to all the selected WSHGs including the petitioner-WSHG, to which, the petitioner-WSHG received with proper acknowledgments.

The above conduct of the Opp. Parties is clearly clarifying that, petitioner-WSHG was fully equipped in its all respect for the procurement of paddy for KMS 2025-26. Nodal Officer was also duly appointed for the smooth progress of the paddy procurement system by the petitioner-WSHG and the final list of eligible Women Self Help Groups including the petitioner- WSHG for the procurement of paddy for KMS 2025-26 was prepared on dated 02.01.2026 as per Annexure-8, in which, the name of the petitioner-WSHG was in Sl. No.5, but on its next day, i.e. on 03.01.2026, suddenly, the same Collector, Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.3) unilaterally and illegally issued the impugned Office Order vide Annexure-1 excluding the name of the petitioner-WSHG as an agency for the procurement of paddy for KMS 2025-26 behind the back of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-WSHG for the exclusion its name from the paddy procurement system for KMS 2025-26 and illegally tagged to the registered farmers of the petitioner-WSHG with Opp. Party No.7-WSHG for the paddy procurement for KMS 2025-26.

For which, without, getting any way, the petitioner filed this writ petition against the Opp. Parties praying for quashing the impugned Letter/Order dated 03.01.2026 vide Annexure-1 issued/passed by the Collector, Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.3) relating to the exclusion of the name of the petitioner-WSHG as an agency for the procurement of paddy for Kharif Marketing Season 2025-26 and to declare the action of the Opp. Parties as arbitrary and illegal and to issue a Writ of Mandamus against the Opp. Parties directing the Opp. Parties to allow the petitioner-WSHG to procure the paddy for KMS 2025-2026 in accordance with the notified policy.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.7.

4. The undisputed documents relied by the petitioner vide Annexures-5 & 8 to 11 are going to show that, the petitioner was selected as a paddy procurement society /agency for KMS 2025-26 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top