Safiya Malik

The Orissa High Court dismissed a petition challenging an official directive requiring the petitioner to vacate the management of a government-run café. The petitioner contended that she had been unlawfully removed from her position as the operator of the "Mission Shakti Café" at Tikabali, Kandhamal, Odisha. The court found that she had no formal agreement authorizing her to operate the café and concluded that she had no enforceable right to continue its management.

The petitioner, Sudharani Bhuyan, was a member of "Maa Bharandi Self-Help Group (SHG)," which had initially been managing the café. The arrangement was made without a formal lease agreement or documented approval from the government authorities. Over time, she, along with other individuals, formed a separate SHG named "Shakti Mata SHG" and continued operating the café under this new entity. The dispute arose when she was directed by the Block Development Officer (BDO) of Tikabali to vacate the premises. The petitioner alleged that this order was issued due to political reasons, claiming that she was removed because she had refused to participate in a political event.

The petitioner submitted that she had invested INR 5 lakhs in furnishing and upgrading the café. She contended that the order for her removal was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice, as no prior notice was issued to her before the eviction directive was passed. She filed a representation before the Collector, Kandhamal, challenging the order, but the Chief Development Project Officer (CDPO) subsequently issued a directive instructing her to vacate the café within three days. Following this, she approached the High Court, seeking judicial intervention to quash the eviction order.

The government authorities, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel (ASC), stated that the petitioner had been removed from "Maa Bharandi SHG" through a resolution dated February 20, 2024. The resolution, signed by all members except the petitioner, recorded that the SHG could no longer manage the café. Subsequently, the government invited applications from eligible SHGs through a public advertisement on February 23, 2024, seeking new operators for the café.

The authorities submitted that the petitioner was no longer part of "Maa Bharandi SHG" and that she had no formal authorization to continue managing the café under the newly formed "Shakti Mata SHG." They argued that her continued possession of the café was unauthorized and that she had already received financial compensation for any investments she claimed to have made in the establishment. The authorities contended that the directive requiring her to vacate the café was justified.

The court examined the submissions and reviewed the records of the case. The judgment recorded, "It is an admitted fact that no formal agreement was entered into by the petitioner with the representative of the Government to take on lease and run the ‘Mission Shakti Cafe.’" The court noted that while the petitioner had originally been part of "Maa Bharandi SHG," once the group decided to withdraw from managing the café, there was no document granting her new SHG, "Shakti Mata," the right to continue operations. The judgment stated, "The concerned department, Government of Orissa, has the prerogative or authority to formulate a scheme for running and management of such Café."

The petitioner contended that her financial investment in the café gave her an inherent right to continue running it. The court rejected this claim, stating, "Since such Café was required to be managed by a SHG, it could not be said that the petitioner has a right to run such Café in an individual capacity."

The petitioner further alleged that the directive to vacate the café was issued due to political influence and that she was targeted for refusing to participate in a political rally. The court declined to make a finding on this issue, stating, "It is the assertion of the petitioner that since she did not participate in the political meeting, she was directed to hand over the key of the Cafe, but again such fact is a question of fact only, which cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction."

The judgment noted that the petitioner had failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the order was issued under political pressure. It stated that as the café's management was subject to government regulations, the petitioner could not claim an independent right to continue its operation.

The court examined whether the authorities had acted arbitrarily or in violation of any legal rights. The judgment recorded, "No document is forthcoming to suggest that the authority concerned has handed over the management of running of ‘Mission Shakti Cafe’ to ‘Shakti Mata SHG.’ The petitioner cannot enforce her right over running of ‘Mission Shakti Cafe.’"

The court concluded that the directive requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises was legally valid. The petitioner had no formal authorization from the government to manage the café, and there was no enforceable contract granting her continued possession.

The High Court disposed of the petition, stating that no relief could be granted. The judgment recorded, "The petitioner cannot enforce her right over running of ‘Mission Shakti Cafe.’" No order was made as to costs.

Case Title: Sudharani Bhuyan v. State of Odisha and Others
Case Number: WP(C) No. 10146 of 2024
Bench: Justice Gourishankar Satapathy

[Read/Download order]