JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioners, by way of these writ petitions, seek to quash the order dated 18.12.2019 whereby the District Social Welfare Officer, Bolangir has issued direction to concerned Child Development Project Officers to tag 'chatua' plants owned by the petitioners to other self help groups in the district. Since all the writ petitions arise out of a common order and issue involved therein being analogous, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioners, which are self help groups for supply of THR (chatua), entered into agreements which were renewed from time to time and finally on 31.07.2019, the agreement period was extended for the year 2019-20 up to 31.03.2020. Such renewal was granted on the basis of review performance of the petitioners-self help group. In some of the self help groups, sample 'chatua' falling under Regulations No. 2.12.1 of FSS (FP & FA) Regulations, 2011 were tested and found to be satisfactory based on the tests performed by the competent authority, namely, Food Analyst, Government of Odisha. But in some cases, though tests were not done, their performance was satisfactory. Consequentially, by virtue of the agreements, the period of which had been extended till 31.03.2020, the petitioners continued to supply 'chatua'. Even the supervisors also inspected the premises of the petitioners-SHGs and in some cases it was advised to keep the premises clean, but there was no allegation With regard to supply of any contaminated 'chatua' to the persons those who are entitled to get under the scheme. But an inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Collector on 30.08.2019 and on the basis of such report, the Collector, Bolangir on the very same day passed order cancelling the agreements for preparation of 'chatua' and consequentially order dated 18.12.2019 has been passed tagging the petitioners-SHGs with opposite party No. 6. Hence this application. 3. Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 632, 641, 657 and 668 of 2020, contended that basing upon the inquiry report dated 30.08.2019 submitted by the Sub-Collector, immediate action was taken by the Collector in cancelling the agreements of the petitioners-SHGs on the very same day without affording opportunity of hearing to them. 3. Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 632, 641, 657 and 668 of 2020, contended that basing upon the inquiry report dated 30.08.2019 submitted by the Sub-Collector, immediate action was taken by the Collector in cancelling the agreements of the petitioners-SHGs on the very same day without affording opportunity of hearing to them. As such, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present application on 07.01.2020 and this Court passed interim order that status quo with regard to possession of products would be maintained till 21.01.2020 and the said interim order was continued from time to time. It is further contended that the competent authority verified and examined the 'chatua' on the basis of the test performance and came to a conclusion that sample of 'chatua', which were falling under Regulations No. 212.1 of FSS (FP & FA) Regulations, 2011 were tested and found to be satisfactory. Therefore, when there was nothing against the petitioners, drastic action so taken by the authority against the petitioners, without affording opportunity of hearing and without complying principles of natural justice, cannot sustain and is liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1272 of 2020 contended that in his case no inquiry was conducted and, as such, steps have been taken without following due procedure. It is contended that cancellation of agreement for supply of 'chatua' has been done with the caprice and whims of the authority concerned, more particularly, such cancellation is contrary to the guidelines issued by the authority. Thereby, the subsequent order of tagging the same to another self help group, cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that there are certain norms required to be followed, but the same were not complied with by the petitioners. It is contended that the Sub-Collector has specifically reported that there was unhygienic procedure adopted in preparing THR (chatua) and supply thereof and, as such, the units are using same premises, equipments and building for storing, processing, packaging etc. and no separate electric meters have been installed in the name of SHG along with other trivial allegations. It is contended that the Sub-Collector has specifically reported that there was unhygienic procedure adopted in preparing THR (chatua) and supply thereof and, as such, the units are using same premises, equipments and building for storing, processing, packaging etc. and no separate electric meters have been installed in the name of SHG along with other trivial allegations. It is contended that on the basis of the report submitted by the Sub-Collector on 30.08.2019, the Collector cancelled the agreements and consequentially, to save the beneficiaries of THR (chatua), the petitioner-units were tagged vide order dated 18.12.2019. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in issuing order impugned so as to warrant interference with the same by this Court. 6. This Court heard Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners W.P.(C) Nos. 632, 641, 657 and 668 of 2020; and Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1272 of 2020; and Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for State-opposite parties. Pleadings having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. The facts, which are admitted, are that the petitioners, being the self help groups, entered into agreements for supply of THR (chatua) to the beneficiaries. During subsistence of such agreements period, which was extended till 31.03.2020, the Sub-Collector caused an inquiry and furnished a report on 30.08.2019 and on that basis, the Collector on the very same day passed order of cancellation of the agreements and subsequently, vide order dated 18.12.2019, passed order tagging petitioner-units to some other self help groups for supply of THR (chatua) to the beneficiaries. On the basis of such admitted facts, it is to be examined whether opposite parties are justified in taking action against the petitioners and that the same is in conformity with the guidelines applicable to the petitioners. 8. The Government of Odisha in the Department of Women & Child Development and Mission Shakti issued guidelines on 03.08.2018 for Hot Cook Meal (HCM) and Take Home Ration (THR) under Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) and Scheme for Adolescent Girls (SAG). Clause-2 of the said guidelines deals with Take Home Ration. 8. The Government of Odisha in the Department of Women & Child Development and Mission Shakti issued guidelines on 03.08.2018 for Hot Cook Meal (HCM) and Take Home Ration (THR) under Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) and Scheme for Adolescent Girls (SAG). Clause-2 of the said guidelines deals with Take Home Ration. (THR), which is given to pregnant and lactating mothers, children from 6 months to 3 years as they do not attend the AWC on a daily basis. Severely underweight children (3-6 years) are also given THR over and above Hot Cooked Meal. Different category of beneficiaries covered under Take Home Ration (THR) are (1) children (6 months to 3 years), (2) pregnant and nursing mothers, (3) severely underweight children and, (4) adolescent girls. So, for these beneficiaries, Government has taken steps for selection of SHGs for preparation and distribution of THR in terms of clause-7 of the said guidelines Clause-8 of the guidelines deals with ration entitlements and packaging, whereas clause-9 deals with procurement of ingredients for THR by SHGs. Clause-10 of the guidelines provides terms and methods of payment, whereas clause-11 deals with quality parameters. Clause-12 of the guidelines deals with contract conditions, and sub clause-(iii) thereof, being relevant, is extracted hereunder:- "(iii) In case any SHG(s) is found to have deviated from the guidelines and made Chatua/Ladoo that has less protein and calorie than prescribed or has sold the Chatua/Ladoo in the market by misutilizing government money, strictest possible action should be taken against the SHG(s). This would entail termination of the contract, stoppage of micro credit support by the department to be SHG (s). A fine can also be enforced on the SHG (s). Proper procedure ensuring natural justice should be followed before taking any action." On perusal of aforementioned provisions, it is made clear that contract can be terminated by following due procedure ensuring natural justice before taking any action. 9. The soul of natural justice is 'fair play in action' In HK (An Infant) in re, 1967 1 All ER 226 (DC), Lord Parker, CJ, preferred to describe natural justice as 'a duty to act fairly'. In Fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secy of State for Environment, 1976 2 All ER 865 (HL), Lord Russel of Killowen somewhat picturesquely described natural justice as 'a fair crack of the whip' In R. v. Secy. In Fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secy of State for Environment, 1976 2 All ER 865 (HL), Lord Russel of Killowen somewhat picturesquely described natural justice as 'a fair crack of the whip' In R. v. Secy. Of State for Home Affairs, ex p. Hosenball, Geoffrey Lane, LJ, 1977 3 All ER 452 (DC & CA), preferred the homely phrase 'common fairness' in defining natural justice. 10. A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 : (1969) 2 SCC 262 , is a landmark in the growth of this doctrine. Speaking for the Constitution Bench, Hegde, J. observed thus: "If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry". In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248 , law has done further blooming of this concept. This decision has established beyond doubt that even in an administrative proceeding involving civil consequences doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. 11. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 , the meaning of 'natural justice' came for consideration before the apex Court and the apex Court observed as follows:- The phrase is not capable of a static and precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in the straight-jacket of a cast-iron formula. Historically, "natural justice" has been used in a way "which implies the existence of moral principles of self evident and unarguable truth". "Natural justice" by Paul Jackson, 2nd Ed., page-1. In course of time, judges nurtured in the traditions of British jurisprudence, often invoked it in conjunction with a reference to "equity and good conscience". Legal experts of earlier generations did not draw any distinction between "natural justice" and "natural law". "Natural justice" was considered as "that part of natural law which relates to the administration of justice." 12. In course of time, judges nurtured in the traditions of British jurisprudence, often invoked it in conjunction with a reference to "equity and good conscience". Legal experts of earlier generations did not draw any distinction between "natural justice" and "natural law". "Natural justice" was considered as "that part of natural law which relates to the administration of justice." 12. In Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and others, (1998) 8 SCC 194 , the apex Court held that natural justice is an antithesis of arbitrariness. It, therefore, follows that audi alteram partem, which is facet of natural justice is a requirement of Art. 14. 13. In Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 276 , the apex Court held as follows: "The rule of law demands that the power to determine questions affecting rights of citizens would impose the limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Thus, whenever a man's rights are affected by decisions taken under statutory powers, the court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice. It is important to note in this context the normal rule that whenever it is necessary to ensure against the failure of justice, the principles of natural justice must be read into a provision. Such a course is not permissible where the rule excludes expressly or by necessary intendment, the application of the principles of natural justice, but in that event, the validity of that rule may fall for consideration." 14. The apex Court in Uma Nath Panday and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2009 SC 2375 : 2009 (I) OLR (SC) 659, held that natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. 15. Natural justice, another name of which is common sense justice, is the name of those principles which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and without adherence to which justice would be a travesty. Natural justice accordingly stands for that "fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice not only be done but also appears to be done". 16. 15. Natural justice, another name of which is common sense justice, is the name of those principles which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and without adherence to which justice would be a travesty. Natural justice accordingly stands for that "fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice not only be done but also appears to be done". 16. Applying the above principles to the present context, it is made clear that on 30.08.2019 the Sub-Collector has submitted inquiry report, but on the very same day, the Collector has passed the order for cancellation of agreements and subsequently attachment was made on 18.12.2019. Therefore, it is presumed that the order of cancellation, which has already been given effect to, had been passed without complying principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions contained under sub-clause-(iii) of Clause-12 of Guidelines dated 03.08.2019. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Collector, Bolangir and consequential order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Bolangir, as indicated in sl. Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of order dated 18.12.2019, so far as it relates to Titilagarh, Muribahal, Bongomunda and Gudvella ICL; Projects, cannot sustain in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Bolangir to reconsider the same afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties and in compliance of principles of natural justice. 17. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order to costs.