JUDGMENT : 1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13973 /2023, while treating the same as a lead case; thus, the rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present order, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case. 1.1. The prayer clauses read as under: “It is therefore, most humble and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed; and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- (a) The order dated 16.08.2023 (Annex-7) passed by the Panchayati Raj Department and the order dated 25.08.2023 (Annex-8) passed by the Municipal Council, Bikaner may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) The respondent authority may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner firm to operate Indira Rasoi on two allotted areas in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2023 (Annex-4) and as per the mandate of the agreement dated 26.05.2023 (Annex-5). (c) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favorable to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner. (d) That the costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. As per the pleaded facts, the Municipal Council, Bikaner invited applications for Expression Of Interest (EOI) dated 12.04.2023 announcing budget made in regard to Additional 1000 Indira Rasoi and the opening of 74 Rasois for the purpose of operation in rural area of Nagar Nigam; in pursuance of the same, the petitioner-Firm applied for the same, which was accepted and allotment was given to operate Indira Rasoi at two places, vide the order dated 23.05.2023. 2.1. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order passed by the Executive Officer, Municipality, Sri Dungargarh on 26.05.2023, agreements were signed between the respondent – Municipal Council and the petitioner-Firm. Thereafter, an order dated 26.06.2023 was passed by Directorate, Local Bodies whereby though the previous operation and monitoring of Indira Rasoi Scheme (Rural) was done by the Local Self Government, however now it was to be done by the Rural Development Department, and operation and monitoring was to be done by the Panchayati Raj Department. Thereafter, an order dated 26.06.2023 was passed by Directorate, Local Bodies whereby though the previous operation and monitoring of Indira Rasoi Scheme (Rural) was done by the Local Self Government, however now it was to be done by the Rural Development Department, and operation and monitoring was to be done by the Panchayati Raj Department. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Panchayati Raj Department directed the Secretary, Department of Local Self Government to cancel the tenders so given before as well as the work orders vide order dated 16.08.2023. 2.2. Thereafter, an office order was passed by the respondent – Municipal Council on 25.08.2023 cancelling the work orders and agreements given to all the Firms for the operation of 74 Indira Rasoi as per the aforesaid EOI and direction was given to return all the furniture, utensils, computer etc. to the concerned development officer of the concerned Panchayat Samiti. 2.3. Thus being aggrieved of the orders dated 16.08.2023 and 25.08.2023, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders were passed without due application of mind, as no cogent and justifiable reason was assigned for cancellation of the allotment as well as the agreement for the 74 Indira Rasoi(s). Also, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of allotment and agreement vide the impugned orders, and thus, such action on part of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice. 3.1. It was further submitted that the allotment of Indira Rasoi was done strictly in accordance with law, not only that but the contract was binding upon the respondents as well, thus, the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment as well as the agreement is not justified in the eye of law; further vide order 16.08.2023, the task of operating Indira Rasoi was arbitrarily given in favour of women’s self help group registered under Rajivika. 3.2. 3.2. It was also submitted that vide order dated 29.08.2023, the respondent department had amended its earlier guidelines dated 16.08.2023 whereby earlier only those organizations who had welfare and social service as their prime motive were to be given management of the Rasoi, and selection was to be done in a transparent manner, as the same would be advertised; however after the amendment the district level committee had been given the sole power of selection. 3.3. It was further submitted that the interested participant(s) had been directed to operate Rasoi(s) as soon as possible and in pursuance of the same, the petitioners had recruited the staff, inspected the premises, done necessary work with regard to electricity pipelines, EMD amount, and after all this work, the respondent had decided to terminate the entire process. 3.4. Learned counsel, in support of such submissions, placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of M.P. Power Management Company Limited v. M/s. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8515-8516 of 2022 decided on 16.11.2022) and State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3498 OF 2020, decided on 16.10.2020). 4. On the other hand Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kunal Upadhyay, appearing for the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the respondent-State had floated the Indira Rasoi Yojana to provide nutritious food to the needful at a bare minimum amount of Rs.8/-and in pursuance of the same, the EOI was invited and the petitioners entered into an agreement with the respondents; however, the date of commencement of the work was not prescribed by the department concerned. 4.1. It was further submitted that the purpose of the said yojana was to provide nutritious food at the minimum cost, thus where the purpose itself was ensuring availability of food to the needy, no financial loss was caused to the petitioners; in furtherance, all the furniture, fixtures, utensils, computer etc. were provided to the petitioners by the department itself, and thus, under such circumstances, no investment had been made by the petitioners, while establishing the Indira Rasoi Units; consequently, no loss was suffered due to the termination of the agreements in question. 4.2. were provided to the petitioners by the department itself, and thus, under such circumstances, no investment had been made by the petitioners, while establishing the Indira Rasoi Units; consequently, no loss was suffered due to the termination of the agreements in question. 4.2. It was also submitted that the Department took the decision to run the Indira Rasoi Units through SHG run by the women in order to empower women & SHG, and accordingly, the agreements with 74 Indira Rasoi Vendors came to be terminated, in view of the policy decision taken by the Department, looking into the larger public interest, i.e. women empowerment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondents invited applications for the aforesaid EOI for opening of 74 Rasoi in pursuance of Indira Rasoi Yojana, and for the same, the petitioners applied therefor, followed by its acceptance; whereafter an agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the respondent and the allotments in question were made accordingly; however by the impugned orders, the allotments as well as the agreements were terminated. 7. This Court further observes that the very purpose of introducing the said Yojana was to provide nutritious food to the needful at a bare minimum amount of Rs.8/-and the said work was to be taken for the purpose of doing charity and help, and not to achieve the object of profit-making, thus, though the allotments and agreements were made in favour of the petitioners, however the date for commencement of the said work was never prescribed; further, the equipments necessary for operating these Rasoi(s) were provided by the respondent department itself, thus there arose no investment on part of the petitioners; consequently, the question of financial loss does not arise. 7.1. 7.1. In furtherance, the EOI itself and the terms and conditions of operation of the Rasois under the Indira Rasoi Yojana clearly provided the intention behind introducing the said yojana; the relevant portion of the EOI in question is reproduced as hereunder: ^^ekuuh; eq[;ea=h egksn;] jktLFkku ljdkj ds ladYi ^^dksbZ Hkw[kk u lks;s^^ dks lkdkj djus ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk izns'k ds lHkh uxjh; fudk;ksa esa bfUnjk jlksbZ ;kstuk fnukad 20-08-2020 ls 'kq: dh tk jgh gSA ;kstuk ds lapkyu dk ewy mÌs'; U;wure ykxr ij t:jrean vketu dks lsokHkko ds vk/kkj ij Hkkstu miyC/k djkuk gS A vr% O;oklkf;d fgr ds LFkku ij lsokHkko ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z djus ds bPNqd izfrf"Br xSj 'kkldh;@/kkfeZd@Lo;alsoh dY;k.kdkjh laLFkk@lgdkjh laLFkk@QeZ@dkWiksZjsV@LFkkuh; Lo;a lgk;rk lewg@{ks=Lrjh; la?k@uxj Lrjh; la?k dks jlksbZ;ksa ds lapkyu gsrq jkT; ds lHkh uxjh; fudk;ksa esa lwphc) (Empanel) ,oa p;u djus gsrq fnukad 10-08-2020 rd vfHk:fp dh vfHkO;fDr (EoI) vkeaf=r dh tkrh gSA uxjh; fudk;okj jlksbZ;ksa dh la[;k foLr`r fooj.k EoI esa miyC/k gS A izR;sd jlksbZ gsrq vkosnu i= vyx&vyx izLrqr djuk gksxk A bPNqd vkosnd lacaf/kr ftyk eq[;ky; dh uxj fudk; ¼uxj fuxe@ifj"kn½ esa viuk vkosnu izLrqr djsxk A foLr`r vfHk:fp dh vfHkO;fDr (EoI) rFkk ;kstuk ds fn'kk&funsZ'k ¼xkbZMykbZu½ uxj fuxe@uxjifj"kn@uxjikfydk dk;kZy; rFkk foHkkx dh osclkbZV www.lsg.urban.rajasthan.gov.in, www.cmar-india.org ls izkIr@MkmuyksM dh tk ldrh gSA^^ The relevant portion of the terms and conditions is also reproduced as hereunder: ^^1- bfUnjk jlksbZ ds lapkyu dk ewy mÌs'; U;wure ykxr ij t:jrean vketu dks lsok vk/kkj ij Hkkstu miyC/k djkuk gS A vr% O;kolkf;d fgr dks ewy vk/kkj uk ekurs gq, dsoy lsokHkko ds vk/kkj ij gh vkosnu fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA^^ 8. This Court also observes that the basic idea behind Self Help Groups is that a small group of people in rural areas comes together voluntarily putting forth a common fund to meet the purpose of the group, and are in general parlance, seen as tools for achieving goals, such as women empowerment among other things; further women empowerment equips women to redefine their role in the society and includes economic empowerment as well; moreover, Self Help Groups that are completely run by women are limited in number and in rural areas such groups become even more scarce in numbers, thus in the opinion of this Court, the decision taken by the respondent department to run the Indira Rasoi Units through Self Help Groups run by women in order to empower women is well reasoned. 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions. 10. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners also do not render any assistance to their case. 11. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.