Engagement of Women’s Self-Help Groups in Paddy Procurement Is a Policy Decision, Not a Legal Right: Orissa High Court

No Vested Right to Continue in Procurement — In a significant judgment impacting the administrative discretion of the State in public procurement policy, the Orissa High Court upheld the decision of the Odisha Government to exclude certain Women’s Self Help Groups (WSHGs) from participating in paddy procurement operations for the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2025–26, and to restrict procurement exclusively to Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS) in select areas.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra, while disposing of a batch of 13 writ petitions filed by various WSHGs, held that engagement in paddy procurement is not a vested or indefeasible right and is subject to policy discretion and performance-based evaluation by the State.

“Mere Continuation Over Years Does Not Create Any Legal Right to Perpetual Engagement” — Court Rejects Plea for Reinstatement

The Court’s principal finding rested on the characterization of the 2019 procurement guidelines as executive instructions, stating:

“Such stipulation cannot… be read as conferring any statutory or vested right either upon the existing WSHGs to continue indefinitely or upon new aspirants to insist upon issuance of EOIs as a matter of right.”

The petitioners — mostly WSHGs that had been engaged since 2019 for paddy and Rabi crop procurement — argued that their sudden exclusion from procurement activities in 2025 was arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and against the stated goal of women empowerment through participatory economic roles.

However, the Court found no arbitrariness in the decision of the District Collector, Subarnapur, issued via orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025, which formalized the restriction of procurement activities to PACS and declined to issue fresh Expressions of Interest (EOIs) to SHGs.

“Audi Alteram Partem Not Rigid – Disengagement Not Punitive or Stigmatic” — Natural Justice Not Violated

On the argument that no show-cause notice or hearing was granted prior to the disengagement of the SHGs, the Court found that the principles of natural justice are flexible and must be contextualized to the nature of rights and consequences.

Justice Mishra clarified: “The disengagement of certain WSHGs does not appear to be by way of a penal action or stigmatic… No blacklisting, debarment or civil disability has been imposed upon them.”

The Court held that in a time-sensitive procurement process, insisting on individualized notices and hearings would have hampered public interest and delayed procurement, especially when the disengagement was a consequence of a district-wide performance review, rather than a targeted punitive action.

Performance-Based Differentiation Is Constitutionally Valid – No Violation of Article 14

Challenging the preference given to PACS and the non-engagement of SHGs, the petitioners had alleged discrimination and arbitrariness. However, the High Court found that classification based on performance, where only satisfactory SHGs were retained, and PACS were preferred to ensure smooth procurement, was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the goal of effective administration.

Justice Mishra observed: “Such classification based on performance has a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, smooth and efficient procurement… and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The Court further noted that the 2019 Guidelines themselves permitted administrative flexibility, and executive deviations from procedural norms did not render the State’s action illegal in the absence of malafide or manifest arbitrariness.

Willingness to Participate ≠ Enforceable Legal Right – Mandamus Not Maintainable

A key contention raised by newly formed SHGs and those previously excluded was that the State failed to issue fresh EOIs in 2025 despite their willingness to participate. The Court rejected this, ruling that:

“Mere willingness to participate does not give rise to any enforceable legal right. A writ of mandamus can be issued only where a legal duty exists and is shown to have been breached.”

Justice Mishra reiterated that executive policy cannot be judicially enforced in the absence of statutory obligation, especially when the Government is operating within the realm of policy discretion and has not conferred any contractual or statutory right upon the petitioners.

Scope of Judicial Review Is Limited – Courts Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Policy

In a decisive articulation of the limits of judicial intervention in matters of state policy, the High Court made it clear that: “This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226… does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative or policy decisions.”

Unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, malafide, or violative of statutory provisions, writ courts must refrain from substituting their own policy preferences, the judgment clarified.

Court Urges Policy-Level Consideration for Future Inclusion

While upholding the State’s actions, Justice Mishra made an important observation in favour of inclusive governance and women’s empowerment:

“This Court considers it appropriate to observe that the Government should, at the policy level, consider providing adequate opportunity to new Women’s Self Help Groups… and those SHGs which were earlier debarred… by making such modifications in the existing guidelines or procedures… without compromising efficiency, transparency and continuity.”

Thus, while denying judicial relief, the Court invited the State to revisit its policy architecture to enable fair participation of SHGs in future procurement years.

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025