While observing, that Section 21 does not confer unfettered or unbridled powers on the State Government to withdraw its earlier order dated May 5, 2021, that too within a period of fifteen days, the Karnataka High Court allowed the present writ petitions filed against the impugned orders of the Government.
A Division Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar while dealing with a batch of petitions seeking implementation of the Integrated Child Development Scheme in the State of Karnataka which was introduced on December 2, 1975 by the Government of India, and assailing the impugned orders stated that the impugned orders were illegal and arbitrary in nature and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The present batch of petitions was instituted to implement the Integrated Child Development Scheme in the State of Karnataka which was introduced on December 2, 1975 by the Government of India.
Factual background of the case was such that the ICDS scheme was initiated by the State of Karnataka, the baneberries of the scheme consisted of children aged 0- 6 years, pregnant and lactating women were supposed to receive 50 % of their dietary allowance through the said scheme.
Thereafter, on October 7, 2004, the Supreme Court of India while pursuing a writ petition directed the State Governments to not use contractors for supply of nutrition in Anganwadis. The Apex Court further directed that the preferably ICDS funds shall be spent by making use of village communities, self help groups and Mahila groups for buying of grains and preparation of meals.
In pursuance of the same, the State of Karnataka established 137 Mahila Supplementary Nutrition Product Training Centres for implementation of the ICDS scheme.
However, there were several reports commissioned by the State Government and Central Government which reflected the tardy implementation of the ICDS scheme. In view of the same, the State Government issued an order pertaining to entering into agreements by all MSTPCs with BIS licensed woman groups. In the said order all relevant and material facts, orders of Apex Court, orders passed by this Court, Central and State Government orders, notifications, circulars were referred to and directions were issued for the purpose of entering into the aforesaid agreements with respect to the ICDS scheme.
The
cause of action stemmed from the point when, on May 15, 2021, the State
Government passed the government order substituting the earlier order
dated May 5, 2021. Moreover another government order dated May 20, 2021
was passed unconditionally through which the circular dated July 2,
20202 was withdrawn wherein the State Government directed to use supply
of good quality of food items to the beneficiaries of the AWCs under the
ICDS scheme.
The subject matter of the present batch of petitions were the implementation of the ICDS Scheme, the government circular dated July 2, 2020 , order dated May 5, 2021 as well as the withdrawal orders dated May 15, 2021 and May 20, 2021.
The Counsel for the petitioners contended that the order dated May 15, 2021 and May 20, 2021 were illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice apart from being contrary to the objectives of the ICDS scheme and the norms, rules etc., framed there under.
Considering the rival contentions of both the parties, the Court submitted that it was rightly contended by the Counsel of the petitioners that the impugned orders were illegal and arbitrary in nature. The Court further stated that a perusal of circular dated July 2, 2020 Government order dated May 5, 2021 as well as the technical committee report dated 1 August 19, 2021, clearly depicted the feasibility for the MSPTCs to tie up with BIS licenced / certified women self help groups such as the petitioners and the same was acknowledged and recommended by the State Government bearing in mind the objectives of the scheme, Apex Court directions and the relevant norms / rules. It is therefore clear that the impugned orders dated May 15, 2021 and May 20, 2021 purporting to withdraw the circular dated July 2, 2020 and Government order dated May 5, 2021 were illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be quashed.
Additionally the Court stated that a perusal of the impugned orders dated May 15, 2021 and May 20, 2021 clearly indicates that the same are completely unreasoned, non-speaking, cryptic, laconic and arbitrary orders which have been passed unconditionally and unilaterally without assigning any reasons and without any application of mind, thereby being violative and contrary to the principles of natural justice and on this ground also, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
On the contention of the respondent that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act enables them to withdraw the circular dated July 2, 2020 and order dated May 5, 2021. With respect to the same, the Court was of the view that considering the peculiar and special facts and circumstances of the instant case including the aims and objects of the ICDS scheme, directions issued by the Apex Court and other proceedings, orders etc., prior to issuance of the same, respondents were not entitled to unilaterally and unconditionally issue the impugned orders under Section 21. It does not confer unfettered or unbridled powers on the State Government to withdraw its earlier order dated May 5, 2021, that too within a period of fifteen days and as such, even this contention of the respondents is liable to be rejected, the Court noted.
Further, the Court submitted that the Counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the issuance of the impugned orders withdrawing the circulars dated July 2, 2020 and May 5, 2021 resulted in denying more than 50 lakh beneficiaries of nutritious food particularly pregnant woman, lactating mothers and children, thus violating their fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, also the impugned orders being arbitrary and capricious under Article 14 of the Constitution of India deserves to be quashed keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shyra Bano vs. Union of India , the Court noted.
Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
Case name: SANGEETA GADAGIN Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments