JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This batch of six writ appeals involving 15 writ appellants herein / writ petitioners is directed against the impugned common order dated 28-4-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed all the 283 writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners therein involving 489 self-help groups / Mahila Mandals including 15 appellants herein, finding no reason to interfere and further finding no merit as well. The writ petitioners challenged legality, validity and correctness of order dated 26-11-2021 by which the State Government has taken a policy decision to award the work of manufacture & distribution of “ready to eat food” to the Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam – respondent No.5 herein with effect from 1-2-2022. 2. Since common question of law and facts is involved in this batch of six writ appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, pleadings averred in W.P.(C)No.455/2022 from which W.A.No.289/2022 titled as Kalika Mahila Mandal Swa Sahayata Samuh and four others – Versus – State of Chhattisgarh and others has arisen, are being referred for all practical purposes. 3. The aforesaid challenge to the impugned order dated 28-4-2022 has been made on the following factual backdrop: - Relevant facts: - 4. The State Government took a policy decision on 26-11-2021 (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) to award the work of “ready to eat food” to respondent No.5 which was made effective with effect from 1-2-2022. The writ appellants (W.A. No.289/2022) / writ petitioners preferred W.P.(PIL) No.157/2021 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 26-11-2021 before this Court. The said writ petition was registered as WP(PIL), but later-on, on the prayer and request made on behalf of the petitioners therein / appellants in W.A.No.289/2022, it was allowed to be converted to W.P.(C)No.455/2022 by order of this Court dated 17-1-2022. The said writ petition was registered as WP(PIL), but later-on, on the prayer and request made on behalf of the petitioners therein / appellants in W.A.No.289/2022, it was allowed to be converted to W.P.(C)No.455/2022 by order of this Court dated 17-1-2022. The writ petition was filed before this Court questioning the order dated 26-11-2021 on the ground that by the impugned order, the State Government has shifted the supply of ready to eat programme from Mahila Swasahayata Samuh to respondent No.5 Nigam in contravention of the orders passed by the Supreme Court from time to time directing to encourage Mahila Swasahayata Samuh and Mahila Mandal – self-help groups to supply the supplementary food distribution to Anganwadi Centres and if this order is allowed to stand, three lakhs women working under the Ready to Eat Scheme will go unemployed. It was further pleaded that while passing the impugned order dated 26-11-2021, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the writ petitioners before taking the impugned decision and there is no reason assigned as to why such a policy decision has been taken by the State to substitute respondent No.5 / Nigam in place of the petitioners, more particularly, when the ready to eat scheme is presently being run by the petitioners – Mahila Swasahayata Samuh and the food is distributed after the quality check and obtaining the Swad Praman Patra by the competent authority, except a few exceptions, no complaint has ever been received against the Mahila Swasahayata Samuh / petitioners and as such, the said order passed by the State Government is not only resulting in unemployment of 3 lakhs women in the State of Chhattisgarh, but also it is violation of the principles of natural justice for which they have made representation to the Collector and in that view of the matter, the order dated 26-11-2021 be declared as per se arbitrary and violation of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and as such, the order deserves to be set aside. 5. Respondents No.1 to 4 / State have filed detailed return stating inter alia that on 2-10-1975, the Government of India had launched the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme for early childhood care and development. The beneficiaries under the Scheme were children in the age group of 0-6 years, pregnant women and lactating mothers. 5. Respondents No.1 to 4 / State have filed detailed return stating inter alia that on 2-10-1975, the Government of India had launched the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme for early childhood care and development. The beneficiaries under the Scheme were children in the age group of 0-6 years, pregnant women and lactating mothers. The objectives of the Scheme are: (i) improve the nutritional and health status of children in the age group of 0-6 years; (ii) laying the foundation for proper psychological, physical and social development of the child; (iii) reduce the incidence of mortality, morbidity, malnutrition and school dropout; (iv) to achieve effective co-ordination of policy and implementation amongst the various departments to promote child development; and (v) to enhance the capability of the mother to look after the normal health and nutritional needs of the child through proper nutrition and health education. The Scheme is sought to be implemented through the network of Anganwadi workers under the ICDS. It was further pleaded that the Scheme is now known as ICDS and continues to be a centrally sponsored welfare scheme under which supplementary nutrition is provided to different beneficiaries such as: (i) Take Home Ration (THR) for children in the age group of 6 months to 3 years, pregnant and lactating women and severely malnourished children in the age of 6 months – 6 years; and (ii) Hot Cooked Meal and Morning Snack for children in the age group of 3 – 6 years. It was also pleaded that taking into consideration the various facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court by way of the two Court Commissioners appointed and through various affidavits filed by the respondents therein in the matter of, issued various directions from time to time including on 7-10-2004, particularly, the direction which is relevant to the present case is, contractors shall not be used for supply of nutrition in Anganwadis and preferably ICDS funds shall be spent by making use of village communities, self-help groups and Mahila Mandals for buying of grains and preparation of meals. It was also brought on record that the Union of India has from time to time issued guidelines and one such guideline was based upon the opinion of Nutrition Experts and in relation to composition of Nutrition Food and its Micro-nutrient Fortification in precise measures issued by the Union of India under the Ministry of Women and Child Development on 24-2-2009 laying down the kind and composition of the Supplementary Nutrition under the caption “Revised Nutritional and Feeding Norms for Supplementary Nutrition in ICDS Scheme”. Under the said scheme, recommendations have been made for providing micro nutrient fortified energy dense as Take Home Ration (THR) to children in the age group of 6 months to 3 years, pregnant & lactating women and severely malnourished children in the age of 6 months to 6 years. It has been filed as Annexure R-2. 6. During the pendency of this PUCL case before the Supreme Court, the National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’) came into force with effect from 10-9-2013. The object of the Act was to provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Under the said Act, “anganwadi” is defined in Section 2(1) and “meal” is also defined in Section 2(9). Further, several significant provisions have been made for the benefit of children in the age group of 6 months to 14 years. 7. It was also pleaded on behalf of the State that the PUCL matter before the Supreme Court came up for hearing on 10-2-2017 and the writ petition was disposed of holding that in view of coming into force of the Act of 2013, nothing survives in the petition and liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner therein stating that “in case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the implementation or otherwise of the National Food Security Act, 2013, he may file a fresh petition”. It has also been pleaded that in light of various directions issued by the Central Government and the Act of 2013, the State Government has issued revised guidelines / directions dated 28-5-2018 (Annexure R-4) for manufacturing and distribution of ready to eat food and hot cooked meal through Anganwadi Centres. 8. It has also been pleaded that in light of various directions issued by the Central Government and the Act of 2013, the State Government has issued revised guidelines / directions dated 28-5-2018 (Annexure R-4) for manufacturing and distribution of ready to eat food and hot cooked meal through Anganwadi Centres. 8. Thereafter only, it is the case of the State, appellants No.1, 2 & 3 in W.A.No.289/2022 with concerned District Programme Officers, Department of Women & Child Development vide Annexure R-1 entered into agreement for supply of supplementary food / ready to eat food on 23-6-2018 for a period of three years, whereas appellants No.4 & 5 have entered into agreement on 25-6-2018 for a period of three years and it is the further case of the State that after the said period of three years, no renewal / new agreement has been executed for further period, as stated in para 4 of the return filed by the State. It has been next pleaded that to avoid difficulties and for removal of doubts, the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India has issued fresh guidelines on 13-1-2021 in relation to preparation and procurement of Take Home Ration (THR) under the caption “Streamlining Guidelines on Quality Assurance, Roles and Responsibilities of Duty Holders, procedure for procurement, etc. in delivery of Supplementary Nutrition”. It has been further pleaded that the Central Government through Ministry of Women & Child Development has issued notification dated 28-6-2021, published in the official gazette on 3-7-2021, and de-notified the Supplementary Nutrition (under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme) Rules, 2017 and directed that guidelines dated 13-1-2021 will supersede the Supplementary Nutrition Rules, 2017, which have been filed as Annexure R-6. It has also been pleaded that as a result of de-notification of the Supplementary Nutrition Rules, 2017, the same has become non-existent and all the previous orders of the Courts relying upon the Rules, 2017 requiring for engagement of self-help groups based on Rule 9 thereof have become insignificant and confusion created with regard to engagement of self-help groups in preparation of the THR, stood completely removed. Therefore, at present, the scheme is to be implemented as per the Act of 2013 read with Revised Nutrition Norms dated 24-2-2009 and Streamlined Guidelines dated 13-1-2021 & 29-6-2021. Therefore, at present, the scheme is to be implemented as per the Act of 2013 read with Revised Nutrition Norms dated 24-2-2009 and Streamlined Guidelines dated 13-1-2021 & 29-6-2021. As such, in that view of the scheme, the order dated 26-11-2021 passed by the State Government awarding the work of manufacturing and distribution of ready to eat food, is in accordance with law. 9. In addition to above, it has also been pleaded that order dated 26-11-2021 has rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The supplementary nutritional product has to be prepared keeping the prescribed calorific intake in mind and the protein requirement as mentioned in Schedule II of the Act of 2013 and directions issued by the Central Government. The State has filed assessment report of self-help groups on the compliance of the guidelines for production of take home ration submitted by the UNICEF as Annexure R-7 stating that 5 major issues were highlighted by the UNICEF relating to self-help groups structure and design, etc. and chart of failed test report has also been filed as Annexure R-8. As such, it has been pleaded that the petitioners have no case and their writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 10. Return has also been filed by respondent No.5 Nigam on 28-2-2022, 25-3-2022 and 23-3-2022 supporting the stand of the State Government and order dated 26-11-2021. 11. Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners on 2-3-2022 stating that it is not permissible for respondent No.5 to take over completely the manufacture of ready to eat food and the distribution of food. It has been further stated that the mistake committed by the State and respondent No.5 is in taking a policy decision contrary to judgments of the Supreme Court in the PUCL matter and contrary to the Act of 2013, is valid. The further mistake committed by the State and respondent No.5 is to characterize the shifting of the Anganwadi services particularly ready to eat food from Mahila Mandals and self-help groups to respondent No.5 is a “contractual and commercial” matter. The petitioners are not seeking enforcement and specific performances of the individual contracts, rather they are seeking enforcement of the orders of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Act of 2013. The petitioners are not seeking enforcement and specific performances of the individual contracts, rather they are seeking enforcement of the orders of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Act of 2013. It has also been pleaded that respondent No.5 is pretending to be a Government of Chhattisgarh undertaking, whereas, in reality, it is a company under the Companies Act with the State Government owning minority shares. Rejoinder was filed supported by the affidavit of the Secretary of petitioner No.1 – Kalika Mahila Mandal Swa Sahayata Samuh in W.P.(C)No.455/2022 / appellant No.1 in W.A.No.289/2022. 12. It is appropriate to mention here that only rejoinder affidavit has been filed, but neither any application for taking the rejoinder on record was filed nor any order was passed by the learned Single Judge taking the rejoinder on record. However, Rule 53 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007, specifically requires that except return/affidavit as filed under Rule 52, no further return, affidavit or document shall be filed by any party except with the leave of the Court. 13. Additional reply was filed by the State / respondents No.1 to 4 on 25-3-2022 opposing the said affidavit / rejoinder stating therein that the petitioners have made an attempt to introduce new plea under the garb of rejoinder so as to alter the grounds raised earlier in the writ petition, as in rejoinder, the petitioners have a right to explain the additional facts incorporated by the respondents in their returns, but entirely new case cannot be introduced by the petitioners by way of rejoinder without amending the writ petition. However, the State / respondents No.1 to 4 have made additional pleadings with regard to the facts pleaded in the rejoinder. The petitioners have also filed rejoinder to the additional reply of the State. 14.The learned Single Judge by its impugned order dated 28-4-2022 dismissed all the 283 writ petitions finding no merit. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this batch of six writ appeals have been preferred by total 15 writ petitioners therein. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants: - 15. Mr. Collin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel ably assisted by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Mr. Pritam Singh and Mr. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this batch of six writ appeals have been preferred by total 15 writ petitioners therein. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants: - 15. Mr. Collin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel ably assisted by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Mr. Pritam Singh and Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions is apparently contrary to the facts and law available on record. He would firstly submit that the finding of the learned Single Judge that since the writ petition filed by the PUCL stood disposed of by the Supreme Court on 10-2-2017, therefore, the directions issued in the PUCL case are not required to be followed is contrary to the well settled law in this regard; the orders passed in the PUCL case were not interim orders, they were final orders on different issues; the orders covered the issues of ICDS, PDS, NREGA, homeless shelters and a host of other issues; and all the orders made were final orders in the sense that they did not become ineffective on the final disposal of the said writ petition on 10-2-2017, particularly, orders dated 28-11-2001, 29-4-2004, 7-10-2004 and 13-12-2006. He would further submit that the PUCL orders passed by the Supreme Court relating to the aspect of Anganwadi centres and supply of ready to eat food would continue even after the enactment of the Act of 2013 with effect from 10-9-2013. He would strongly rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 15 SCC 718 . Mr. He would strongly rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 15 SCC 718 . Mr. Collin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel, would further contend that the further finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the PUCL judgment by the Supreme Court not to be followed because the Act of 2013 came into force on 10-9-2013 is also contrary to the well settled law in this regard and as such, even in Section 36 of the Act of 2013 and in the order passed by the Supreme Court in the PUCL case there is no inconsistency and therefore the learned Single Judge was absolutely unjustified in holding that after coming into force of the Act of 2013, the order passed by the Supreme Court in PUCL case is not to be followed. He would also contend that though the Rules of 2015 / 2017 requiring self-help groups has been withdrawn, even in absence of the rules, the Act of 2013 mandates production through Anganwadi workers, mahila mandals and self-help groups only and finding in this regard is liable to be set aside, and circulars of the State Government dated 13-1-2021 & 29-6-2021 would not nullify the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat (supra). He would also highlight the issues raised in the rejoinder along with additional documents stating that false statement has been made on behalf of the State to the court regarding take home ration stating to be manufactured in the Chhattisgarh government factory and further submit that disengagement of self-help groups would render 3 lakhs women unemployed and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside being contrary to the facts and law available on record. Submissions on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh: - 16. Countering the submissions made on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, learned Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh, would submit as under: - 1. Submissions on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh: - 16. Countering the submissions made on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, learned Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh, would submit as under: - 1. The petitioners in the writ petitions have only raised a ground that order dated 26-11-2021 is per se arbitrary and bad in law, and if the said order is allowed to stand whereby the award of work has been allotted to respondent No.5 Nigam, three lakhs women belonging to self-help groups / mahila mandals will become unemployed and the said order has been passed without any notice and without giving any opportunity to the appellants herein and representation has not been considered and decided, and the appellants herein were providing quality food. Except this, no other ground has been raised in the writ petitions. However, the agreement executed on 23-6-2018/25-6-2018 between the petitioners and the State authority was for a period of three years, that has already expired and it has not been extended as clearly mentioned in the return in paragraph 4 and it has not been controverted, therefore, the writ appellants have no legal and enforceable right to claim any relief at present and the writ petitioners have not claimed any other relief in other writ petitions. 2. New grounds which have been sought to be raised by way of rejoinder on behalf of the petitioners cannot be permitted to be raised, as it is well settled law that by rejoinder only the facts pleaded in the return can be explained, but no new ground(s) can be permitted to be raised by way of rejoinder. 3. On de-notification of the Supplementary Nutrition Rules, 2017, the same has become non-existent and previous orders of the Courts requiring for engagement of self-help groups based upon the said rules has become insignificant / repealed and confusion created with regard to engagement of self-help groups in preparation of Take Home Ration, stood completely removed and the scheme therefore remained to be implemented as per the Act of 2013 read with Revised Nutrition Norms dated 24-2-2009 and Streamlined Guidelines dated 13-1-2021 and office memorandum dated 29-6-2021. 4. 4. The direction issued by the Supreme Court in the PUCL case qua the ICDS scheme was in order to fill up the vacuum in absence of any governing statute, which was subsequently filled up by the enactment of the Act of 2013 and the PUCL case was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 10-2-2017. In view of the provisions contained in Sections 7, 24 & 38 of the Act of 2013, guidelines and directives issued by the Central Government are to be implemented mandatorily by the State Governments. Hence, on the date of impugned order, guidelines dated 24-2-2009, streamlining guidelines dated 13-1-2021 and the Act of 2013 were in force. 5. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that policy is contrary to any statutory provision or Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and others, (2002) 2 SCC 333 and Directorate of Film Festivals and others v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others, (2007) 4 SCC 737 . 6. Contract cannot be enforced through writ remedies. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1988) 4 SCC 534 , learned Advocate General would submit that if the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition, then the same cannot be entertained. 7. 283 writ petitions (civil) were filed by various petitioners (self-help groups) involving a total number of 489 self-help groups/Mahila Mandals challenging the order of the State Government dated 26-11-2021 and after the impugned order dated 28-4-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, only six writ appeals involving 15 writ petitioners (therein) / writ appellants herein have chosen to challenge the order dated 28-4-2022 out of total 489 petitioners in 283 writ petitions. Furthermore, during the pendency of these appeals, four appellants herein have already entered into contract for transporting ready to eat food to the Anganwadi Centres and as such, majority of the self-help groups have already accepted the decision of the State Government. As such, the writ appeals deserve to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited :- 17. Mr. As such, the writ appeals deserve to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited :- 17. Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited / respondent No.5, would submit as under: - 1. The writ petitioners had only sought to enforce their contractual obligation for which writ petitions were not maintainable at all and contract period of the writ appellants entered into on 23-6-2018 / 25-6-2018 for a period of three years had already expired and it has not been extended or new agreement has not been executed between the appellants and the State authorities, as such, at present, the writ appellants herein have no legal right to claim relief in the writ appeals, particularly, no writ has been sought for renewal / extension of their contract period in this regard, only order dated 26-11-2021 has been sought to be challenged. 2. The appellants have failed to challenge the constitutional validity of the Act of 2013 and have not challenged the Streamlining Guidelines 2021 on the basis of which order dated 26-11-2021 has been issued by respondent No.1 State of Chhattisgarh. The Supplementary Nutrition Rules, 2017 have already been de-notified by the State Government by the Streamlined Guidelines dated 29-6-2021 which has also not been questioned, therefore, challenge to order dated 26-11-2021 has no leg to stand. 3. The writ appellants have no vested statutory right in terms of the Act of 2013 and the rules framed thereunder to continue for manufacture and supply of ready to eat food that too after expiry of the period of contract. 4. All the interim orders passed in the PUCL case qua ICDS have merged with the final order passed on 10-2-2017 disposing of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner (therein) to question the provisions of the Act of 2013 as regards its implementation or otherwise. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Chandra Agarwal and another v. U.P. Financial Corpn. and others, 2009 (6) SCR 931 . 5. Direction contained in 2004 PUCL judgment (supra) would not survive after coming into force of the Act of 2013 with effect from 10-9-2013. 6. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Chandra Agarwal and another v. U.P. Financial Corpn. and others, 2009 (6) SCR 931 . 5. Direction contained in 2004 PUCL judgment (supra) would not survive after coming into force of the Act of 2013 with effect from 10-9-2013. 6. The decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 9 SCC 340 is the correct view and the decision in Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat (supra) is not applicable in the factual scenario of the present case. 7. This Court cannot interfere in the order dated 26-11-2021 in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Federation of Railway Officers Association and others v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289 , Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and others, (2001) 3 SCC 635 , Federation HAJ PTOs of India v. Union of India, (2020) 18 SCC 527 and Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) (supra). 8. In view of the policy guidelines dated 13-1-2021 read with the new Rules of 2022, there is no scope for any self-help group to claim any right for its engagement in the process of manufacture of take home ration and in that view of the matter, the writ appeals deserve to be dismissed. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. Discussion and Analysis: - 19. Part IV of the Constitution of India provides for Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 47 of the Constitution mandates duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health as among its primary duties. The Government of India in order to achieve the objective provided in Article 47 of the Constitution, launched a welfare scheme namely, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) with effect from 2-10-1975. The said Scheme is a unique early childhood development programme, aimed at addressing malnutrition, health and also development needs of young children, pregnant and nursing mothers. It consists of four different components viz., Early Childhood Care Education & Development, Care & Nutrition Counselling, Health Services, etc.. The said Scheme is a unique early childhood development programme, aimed at addressing malnutrition, health and also development needs of young children, pregnant and nursing mothers. It consists of four different components viz., Early Childhood Care Education & Development, Care & Nutrition Counselling, Health Services, etc.. It was designed to promote holistic development of children under 6 years of age, pregnant woman and lactating mothers among others. The services are delivered through Anganwadi workers at Anganwadi Centres. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation titled as PUCL v. Union of India, W.P.No.196/2001, had issued various directions from time to time for protection of right to food of the poor and the underprivileged sections including children and women to effectively implement the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme. However, the said writ petition was disposed of by their Lordships by order dated 10-2-2017 in light of coming into force of the Act of 2013 with effect from 10-9-2013. 20.The Act of 2013 is an Act to provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2013, relevant to the present case, are as under: - “7. It is, now proposed to replace the National Food Security Ordinance, 2013 with the National Food Security Bill, 2013, to— xxx xxx xxx (c) entitle every pregnant woman and lactating mother to meal, free of charge, during pregnancy and six months after child birth, through the local anganwadi, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II; and to provide to such women maternity benefit of not less than rupees six thousand in such installments as may be prescribed by the Central Government; (d) entitle every child up to the age of fourteen years—(i) age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years; and (ii) one mid day meal, free of charge, everyday, except on school holidays, in all schools run by local bodies. Government and Government aided schools, to children up to class VIII or within the age group of six to fourteen years, whichever is applicable, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II;” 21.As noticed herein-above, the Act of 2013 came into the statute book as the National Food Security Act, 2013 on 10-9-2013. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 2013 defines the word “anganwadi” which the State had already established on enforcement of the ICDS and the Act of 2013 in shape of Section 2(1), which gives statutory recognition to the Anganwadi Centres and defines as under: - “(1) “anganwadi” means a child care and development centre set-up under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme of the Central Government to render services covered under section 4, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 and section 6;” 22. Accordingly, Anganwadi Centres, now, have got the statutory flavour on coming into force of the Act of 2013 with effect from 10-9-2013. The said Anganwadi Centres are set up under the ICDS Scheme of the Central Government to render services covered under Sections 4, 5(1)(a) & 6 of the Act of 2013. Similarly, Section 4 of the Act of 2013 creates a statutory right in favour of every pregnant woman and lactating mother. Section 5 of the Act of 2013 provides statutory right in favour of children up to the age of fourteen years. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 2013 provides for nutritional support to children in the age group of six months to 6 years, age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. Section 6 of the Act of 2013 obliges the State Government to provide for prevention and management of child malnutrition by mandating that the State Government shall, through the local anganwadi, identify and provide meals, free of charge, to children who suffer from malnutrition, so as to meet the nutritional standards; specified in Schedule II. Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 2013, state as under: - “4. Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 2013, state as under: - “4. Nutritional support to pregnant women and lactating mothers.—Subject to such schemes as may be framed by the Central Government, every pregnant woman and lactating mother shall be entitled to— (a) meal, free of charge, during pregnancy and six months after the child birth, through the local anganwadi, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II; and (b) maternity benefit of not less than rupees six thousand, in such instalments as may be prescribed by the Central Government: Provided that all pregnant women and lactating mothers in regular employment with the Central Government or State Governments or Public Sector Undertakings or those who are in receipt of similar benefits under any law for the time being in force shall not be entitled to benefits specified in clause (b). 5. Nutritional support to children.—(1) Subject to the provisions contained in clause (b), every child up to the age of fourteen years shall have the following entitlements for his nutritional needs, namely:— (a) in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years, age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II: Provided that for children below the age of six months, exclusive breast feeding shall be promoted; (b) in the case of children, up to class VIII or within the age group of six to fourteen years, whichever is applicable, one mid-day meal, free of charge, everyday, except on school holidays, in all schools run by local bodies, Government and Government aided schools, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. (2) Every school, referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), and anganwadi shall have facilities for cooking meals, drinking water and sanitation: Provided that in urban areas facilities of centralised kitchens for cooking meals may be used, wherever required, as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government. 6. (2) Every school, referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), and anganwadi shall have facilities for cooking meals, drinking water and sanitation: Provided that in urban areas facilities of centralised kitchens for cooking meals may be used, wherever required, as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government. 6. Prevention and management of child malnutrition.—The State Government shall, through the local anganwadi, identify and provide meals, free of charge, to children who suffer from malnutrition, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II.” 23.Under Section 6 of the Act of 2013, duty has been cast on the State Government to identify and provide meals, free of charge, to children who suffer from malnutrition through anganwadi centres meeting with the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. 24.Under Section 7 of the Act of 2013, it is the obligation of the State Governments to implement schemes covering entitlements under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 2013 in accordance with the guidelines, including cost sharing, between the Central Government and the State Governments in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Schedule II of the Act of 2013 provides for nutritional standards, which states as under: - SCHEDULE II [See sections 4(a), 5(1) and 6] NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS Nutritional standards: The nutritional standards for children in the age group of 6 months to 3 years, age group of 3 to 6 years and pregnant women and lactating mothers required to be met by providing “Take Home Rations” or nutritious hot cooked meal in accordance with the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme and nutritional standards for children in lower and upper primary classes under the Mid Day Meal Scheme are as follows: Serial Number Category Type of meal Calories (Kcal) Protein (g) 1 2 3 4 5 1. Children (6 months to 3 years) Take Home Ration 500 12-15 2. Children (3 to 6 years) Morning Snack and Hot Cooked Meal 500 12-15 3. Children (6 months to 6 years) who are malnourished Take Home Ration 800 20-25 4. Lower primary classes Hot Cooked Meal 450 12 5. Upper primary classes Hot Cooked Meal 700 20 6. Pregnant women and Lactating mothers Take Home Ration 600 18-20 25. Children (3 to 6 years) Morning Snack and Hot Cooked Meal 500 12-15 3. Children (6 months to 6 years) who are malnourished Take Home Ration 800 20-25 4. Lower primary classes Hot Cooked Meal 450 12 5. Upper primary classes Hot Cooked Meal 700 20 6. Pregnant women and Lactating mothers Take Home Ration 600 18-20 25. Chapter IX of the Act of 2013 provides for Obligations of State Government for Food Security which includes Section 24 of the Act of 2013, which deals with implementation and monitoring of schemes for ensuring food security. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 states that the State Government shall be responsible for implementation and monitoring of the schemes of various Ministries and Departments of the Central Government in accordance with guidelines issued by the Central Government for each scheme, and their own schemes, for ensuring food security to the targeted beneficiaries in their State. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 provides for the duty of the State Government. Similarly, Section 36 of the Act of 2013 provides that the provisions of the Act or the schemes made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of such law. Section 41 provides for transitory provisions for schemes, guidelines, etc. by stating that the schemes, guidelines, orders and food standard, grievance redressal mechanism, vigilance committees, existing on the date of commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force and operate till such schemes, guidelines, orders and food standard, grievance redressal mechanism, vigilance committees are specified or notified under this Act or the rules made thereunder. by stating that the schemes, guidelines, orders and food standard, grievance redressal mechanism, vigilance committees, existing on the date of commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force and operate till such schemes, guidelines, orders and food standard, grievance redressal mechanism, vigilance committees are specified or notified under this Act or the rules made thereunder. 26.A Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dipika Jagatram Sahani v. Union of India and others, (2021) 2 SCC 740 has considered the obligation of the State in this regard and also considered the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme and its orders passed in the PUCL case and it has been held that Section 4 of the Act of 2013 creates a statutory right of every pregnant woman and lactating mother free meals during pregnancy and six months after the child birth; Section 5 of the Act of 2013 provides for nutritional support to children, in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years, age appropriate meal, etc.; Section 6 provides for and management of child malnutrition; and also considered Section 7 of the Act. Finally, it has been held by their Lordships that Anganwadi Centres, which were already existing, have statutory recognition and thereafter, highlighted the fact that under the provisions of the Act of 2013, the State Government has statutory obligation, as imposed under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 2013 to implement such schemes under the Act of 2013 with regard to nutritional standards provided under Sections 4(a), 5(1) & 6 of the Act, and observed as under: - “20. As observed above, it is now statutory obligation of the Centre and the States to provide for nutritional support to the pregnant women and lactating mothers, nutritional support to children and to take steps to identify and provide meals for children who suffer from malnutrition. The Government has a constitutional obligation to preserve human life. Good health of its citizens is its primary duty. International covenants also aim at highest attainable standards of physical and mental health. This is in interest of social justice. Inadequate supply of nutritious food to the citizens, more particularly to the children and the women shall affect their health. The Government has a constitutional obligation to preserve human life. Good health of its citizens is its primary duty. International covenants also aim at highest attainable standards of physical and mental health. This is in interest of social justice. Inadequate supply of nutritious food to the citizens, more particularly to the children and the women shall affect their health. Therefore, the same shall be in violation of their fundamental right to health/ right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 21. The Centre as well as States are statutorily obliged to implement statutory obligation as imposed under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 2013 Act. The nutritional support is required to be of the nutritional standards which have already been laid down to Schedule II of the 2013 Act and all States/UTs are obliged to implement such Scheme and have to comply with Schedule II. The main emphasis in the writ petition being the issue of opening of Anganwadi Centres throughout the country, we need to first consider the above issue. Provision of foodgrains as per the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 is a statutory obligation on the State. Article 47 of the Constitution provides that one of the primary duties of the State is to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of the people.” Their Lordships further mandated that the State has to provide an appropriate mechanism for supervision and check, child development officers and other district level officers who are entrusted to monitor the functioning of Anganwadi Centres have to be extra vigilant and take steps so that no beneficiary is denied its dues. Their Lordships pertinently observed as under: - “35. It is the obligation of the State to ensure that pregnant women, lactating mothers and children in the age of 3 to 6 years and children who suffer from malnutrition are provided their dues. The State has to provide an appropriate mechanism for supervision and check, child development officers and other district level officers who are entrusted to monitor the functioning of Anganwadi Centres have to be extra vigilant and take steps so that no beneficiary is denied its dues. All States/Union Territories should evolve an appropriate mechanism for supervision so that dues are received by beneficiaries for whom schemes are in place. All States/Union Territories should evolve an appropriate mechanism for supervision so that dues are received by beneficiaries for whom schemes are in place. It is for the State to secure health to its citizens as its primary duty. No doubt, the Government is rendering this obligation through various schemes, such as, opening of Anganwadis, providing nutritious food through Anganwadis, Mid-day Meal Scheme, etc. but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as possible, and the Government must supply the nutritious food in the real sense bearing in mind the provisions of National Food Security Act.” 27. Not only this, in order to comply the provisions of the Act of 2013 in light of Sections 4(a), 5(1)(a) & 6 read with Schedule II of the Act of 2013, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act of 2013, first of all, the Central Government, in consultation with the State Governments, framed rules known as the Supplementary Nutrition (under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme) Rules, 2015 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2015’), which came into force with effect from 1-6-2015. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2015 confers responsibility upon the State Governments and Union Territory Administration to monitor and review arrangement for supplementary nutrition and also provides for engagement of Self Help Groups, which states as under: - “8. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2015 confers responsibility upon the State Governments and Union Territory Administration to monitor and review arrangement for supplementary nutrition and also provides for engagement of Self Help Groups, which states as under: - “8. Responsibility to monitor and review arrangement for supplementary nutrition.-The respective State Governments and Union territory Administration, and the Monitoring and Review Committees at the National, State, District, Block and Anganwadi levels, constituted by the Central Government in the Ministry of Women and Child Development from time to time, shall be responsible to monitor and review the status of arrangement for Supplementary Nutrition, convergence with the line Departments to ensure water and sanitation facilities, ensure regular functioning of Anganwadi Centres, ensure regular supply of Supplementary Nutrition at Anganwadi Centres without disruptions and use of iodized or iron fortified iodized salts, ensure monitoring and supervision visits by officials at different levels as per norms, method of delivery of supplementary food at Anganwadi Centres, engagement of Self Help Groups, ensure supply and quality of Supplementary Nutrition through them and all other issues relating to the above, as per their roles defined in the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Women and Child Development from time to time: Provided that till the engagement of Self Help Groups, the supply of Supplementary Nutrition shall be ensured from such other sources or approved agencies in terms of the existing rules and regulations notified by the Central Government and the State Governments.” 28.The Rules of 2015 so enacted were superseded by the Supplementary Nutrition (under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme) Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’), which came into force with effect from 20-2- 2017, providing that the meal shall be served at the nearest anganwadi centres where the beneficiary is registered or enrolled and conferred responsibility upon the respective State Governments and Union Territory Administrations to monitor and review arrangement for supplementary nutrition and this rule also emphasized the need for engagement of Self Help Groups by Rule 9, which states as under: - “9. Responsibility to monitor and review arrangement for supplementary nutrition.-The respective State Governments and Union territory Administrations, and the Monitoring and Review Committees at the National, State, District, Block and anganwadi levels, constituted by the Central Government in the Ministry of Women and Child Development from time to time, shall be responsible to monitor and review the status of arrangement for Supplementary Nutrition, convergence with the line Departments to ensure water and sanitation facilities, ensure regular functioning of anganwadi centres, ensure regular supply of Supplementary Nutrition at anganwadi centres without disruptions and use of iodized or iron fortified iodized salts, ensure monitoring and supervision visits by officials at different levels as per norms, method of delivery of supplementary food at anganwadi centres, engagement of Self Help Groups, ensure supply and quality of Supplementary Nutrition through them and all other issues relating to the above, as per their roles defined in the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Women and Child Development from time to time: Provided that till the engagement of Self Help Groups, the supply of Supplementary Nutrition shall be ensured from such other sources or approved agencies in terms of the existing rules and regulations notified by the Central Government and the State Governments or Union territory Administrations.” 29. Thereafter, in substitution of the Rules of 2017, Streamlining Guidelines on Quality Assurance, Roles and Responsibilities of Duty Holders, procedure for procurement, integrating AYUSH concepts and Data Management and Monitoring through ‘Poshan Tracker’ for transparency, efficiency and accountability in delivery of Supplementary Nutrition (for short, ‘the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021’) were issued by the Central Government on 13-1-2021 of which clause 1 prescribes Quality Assurance – Adherence to Quality Standards and Testing mentioned in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and further prescribes Take-Home Ration from FSSAI owned/registered/empaneled/NABL accredited laboratory. Clause 2 of the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021 prescribes Supply-Chain Management at District Level, State Level and in Village. It prescribes involvement of AWC (Anganwadi Centre) Level Management Committees, village communities, Mothers Groups, and Panchayati Raj Institutions (Poshan Panchayats) in the Supply-Chain Management. Clause 4 prescribes Procedure for Procurement wherein it has been stated that State/Union Territory must introduce transparent processes for procurement as per GFR and vigilance guidelines and ensure that Take Home Ration procured conforms to technical and nutritional standards set by Ministry of Women & Child Development. Clause 4 prescribes Procedure for Procurement wherein it has been stated that State/Union Territory must introduce transparent processes for procurement as per GFR and vigilance guidelines and ensure that Take Home Ration procured conforms to technical and nutritional standards set by Ministry of Women & Child Development. The Streamlining Guidelines of 2021 were repealed by the Government of India, Ministry of Women & Child Development vide its order dated 28-6-2021 and notification was issued by the Ministry of Women & Child Development on 12-9-2022 framing the rules known as the Integrated Nutrition Support Programme – Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan (2.0), Rules, 2022 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2022’), which applies to every pregnant woman and lactating mother till six months after child birth and every child in the age group of six months to six years (including those suffering from malnutrition) for three hundred days in a year, as per the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II to the Act of 2013. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2022 provides for Procurement and Quality of Nutrition. 30. As such, the Rules of 2017 have been de-notified in which there was reference for engagement of self-help groups only in Rule 9 with respect to supply and procurement of supplementary nutrition. The Rules of 2017 have been substituted by the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021 which have further been substituted by the Rules of 2022. Neither in the Act of 2013 nor in the Rules of 2021 in force at present (the Rules of 2022), there is reference to engagement of self-help groups or even Mahila Mandals and even in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2013 also, there is no reference to self-help groups anywhere. As such, in the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021 followed by the Rules of 2022, which came into force with effect from 12-9-2022, there is no reference to self-help groups. The Rules of 2022 regulate the entitlements specified under the provisions of the Act of 2013 for every pregnant woman and lactating mother, till six months after child birth and every child in the age group of six months to six years. The Rules of 2022 defines the term “Take Home Ration” which states that Take Home Ration should be in the form of a processed mixture of various food ingredients (not raw ration), as defined in Rule 3(e) of the said Rules. 31. The Rules of 2022 defines the term “Take Home Ration” which states that Take Home Ration should be in the form of a processed mixture of various food ingredients (not raw ration), as defined in Rule 3(e) of the said Rules. 31. After having examined the Scheme of the Act of the 2013 and the Rules made thereunder, it is vividly clear that reference to engagement of self-help groups was there in the Rules of 2015 as well as in the Rules of 2017, which have been substituted by the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021 and the said Streamlining Guidelines have been repealed and substituted by the Rules of 2022 with effect from 12-9-2022 and in the Rules of 2022 also there is no reference to engagement of self-help groups in the statutory scheme of the Act of 2013 as well as in the Rules of 2022 in vogue and more particularly, the petitioners’ / appellants’ contract for supply of “ready to eat food” has already come to an end after expiry of three years from 23-6-2018 and neither prayer for renewal has been made in the writ petition nor any fresh agreement has been entered into between the appellants and the State authorities. 32. The aforesaid legal and factual position would bring us to the submissions raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. 33. First of all, it would be appropriate to notice the pleadings made on behalf of the writ appellants herein / writ petitioners. In the writ petitions, the only pleading that has been made is that the petitioners were working under the Ready to Eat Food scheme and if order dated 26-11-2021 is allowed to stand, 3 lakhs women carrying on the self-help groups & Mahila Mandals would become unemployed and that would be the violation of the direction of the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India, therefore, order dated 26-11-2021 be set aside being contrary to law. Key pleadings made in all the writ petitions, especially W.P.(C)No.455/2022 being lead case, averred in paragraphs 8.3 & 8.5 and similarly, relief claimed in paragraph 10.2 are reproduced herein-below for the sake of convenience: - “8.3 That throughout state the order dated 26/11/2021 thereby the State government sifted ready to eat program Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh to Agriculture Development Department, if this order is implemented then 3 lakhs of women who are working in the ready to eat program they will become unemployed. In the State of C.G. 30 thousand Swa Sahayata Samuh and around 3 lakhs women are working under the Ready to Eat Scheme, after this order they will become unemployed, and as per the order/direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court “Local Women's self-help groups and Mahila Mandal should be encouraged to supply the supplementary food distributed in anagnwadi centers. They can make purchases, prepare the food locally, and supervise the distribution.” The state government issued order against the guideline issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Without giving any explanation or reason why is Ready to Eat program being given to the Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evm Krishi Vikas Nigam ? and also not given any opportunity of hearing to the Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh and sifted Ready to Eat program to the Kirshi Vikas Nigam. The Relevant part of Supreme Court Orders On the Right To Food A Tool for Action is filed herewith as Annexure P-2. 8.5 That, despite the clear order/direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court “Local women’s self-help groups and Mahila Mandal should be encouraged to supply the supplementary food distributed in anagnwadi centers. They can make purchases, prepare the food locally, and supervise the distribution.” But the respondent State without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and also not assigning any reason why this program is being sifted to The Krishi Vikas Nigam. They can make purchases, prepare the food locally, and supervise the distribution.” But the respondent State without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and also not assigning any reason why this program is being sifted to The Krishi Vikas Nigam. Relief claimed 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the impugned order dated 26/11/2021 is per se arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law.” 34.Though detailed return has been filed as noticed in the earlier paragraph of the judgment, but the writ petition was not amended by the appellants herein and new pleadings were sought to be raised by filing rejoinder affidavit, which has even not been taken on record, though Rule 53 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007, specifically requires that additional pleading to be brought on record on the leave of the Court. Paragraph 3 of the rejoinder filed by the petitioners states as under: - “3. First, it is not permissible for R-5 to take over completely the manufacture of ready to eat food and the distribution of the food. I have already stated in my Application for Interim Relief dated 25.1.22 that R-5 pretends to be a government of Chhattisgarh undertaking whereas in reality it is a company under the Companies Act with the government owning minority shares. Thus the stand of the Petitioner that the impugned order has been made to privatize the distribution of food in Anganwadis away from the Mahila Mandals and to give it to private operators. 4. The reply on behalf of R-5 dated 14.1.22 is signed by an advocate having the designation of “Officer In-Charge of the Case” which is highly improper. If R-5 is a wholly owned government of Chhattisgarh undertaking that is one thing, but if it is a private company pretending to be a government undertaking that gives a completely new complexion to this case as one of privatization by the State of Chhattisgarh. 5. The second mistake made by the State and R-5 is in believing that a policy decision contrary to judgments of the Supreme Court and contrary to the Food Security Act, 2013 is valid. 6. The third mistake made by the State and R-5 is to characterize the shifting of the Anganwadi services particularly ready to eat food from Mahila Mandals and SHGs to R-5 is a “contractual and commercial” matter. It is not. 6. The third mistake made by the State and R-5 is to characterize the shifting of the Anganwadi services particularly ready to eat food from Mahila Mandals and SHGs to R-5 is a “contractual and commercial” matter. It is not. It is statutory and the orders of the Supreme Court are binding. There cannot be a contract contrary to an order of the Supreme Court. 7. The fourth mistake is this. Petitioners are not seeking enforcement and specific performances of the individual contracts. Rather they are seeking enforcement of the orders of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Food Security Act, 2013.” 35. However, a careful reading of the aforesaid pleadings made on behalf of the appellants would show that the only pleading that has been raised in the writ petition is that implementation of order dated 26-11-2021 passed by the State Government would lead to unemployment of 3 lakhs women who are working in the ready to eat programme and that would be contrary to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the PUCL case and would also be violation of the order of the Supreme Court in PUCL case, as the Supreme Court has directed for encouragement of self-help groups and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. This was raised by filing W.P.(PIL)No.157/2021, which was allowed by this Court to be converted to W.P.(C) No.455/2022 against which W.A.No.289/2022 has arisen. Other grounds have not been raised in the writ petition and for the first time, raised in the rejoinder affidavit. Even, only affidavit in shape of rejoinder has been filed and no application for taking rejoinder on record has been filed as required under Rule 53 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 36. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) and others v. Devjee Mishra, (2016) 10 SCC 445 , deprecated the practice of taking new plea in rejoinder affidavit and held that the petitioner cannot be allowed to urge the grounds which he had not taken in the petition. 36. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) and others v. Devjee Mishra, (2016) 10 SCC 445 , deprecated the practice of taking new plea in rejoinder affidavit and held that the petitioner cannot be allowed to urge the grounds which he had not taken in the petition. Similarly, in the matter of S.S. Sharma and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 588 , the Supreme Court has held that the courts should ordinarily insist on the parties being confined to their specific written pleadings and should not be permitted to deviate from them by way of modification or supplementation except through the well-known process of formally applying for amendment. 37. In view of the above-stated legal position qua pleading of essential facts in writ petition, new pleas cannot be permitted to be raised in the rejoinder more particularly in absence of any application for taking leave as required and no application for amendment has been filed introducing the facts pleaded in the rejoinder. 38.Now, the next submission that has been vehemently urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the State Government was bound to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court issued in PUCL case despite being the law having been enacted by the Parliament in shape of the Act of 2013 and the rules made thereunder. 39. As noticed herein in the preceding paragraphs, Anganwadi Centres have been given statutory recognition by the Act of 2013 and similarly, Section 4 of the Act of 2013 creates a statutory right to every pregnant woman and lactating mother meal, free of charge, during pregnancy and six months after the child birth, through the local anganwadi, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. Further, Section 5(a) creates similar statutory right in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years, age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. Section 6 provides for prevention and management of child malnutrition. Further, Section 5(a) creates similar statutory right in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years, age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. Section 6 provides for prevention and management of child malnutrition. As per the provisions contained in the Act of 2013, it is the obligation of the State Government under Section 7 to implement schemes for realisation of entitlements in accordance with the guidelines issued and accordingly, the Rules of 2015 enacted were superseded by the Rules of 2017, which were substituted by the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021 and the Rules of 2022. Though in the Rules of 2015 and the Rules of 2017 engagement of self-help groups was obligated, but in the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021 and the Rules of 2022, engagement of self-help groups has not been obligated and even in the Act of 2013, no statutory recognition has been given to self-help groups, though it has been given to local Anganwadi Centres. More particularly, as per the pleadings made by the State in the return, agreement was entered into by the District Programme Officers, Department of Women & Child Development with the appellants in W.A.No.289/2022 vide Annexure R-1 dated 23-6-2018/25-6-2018 for a period of three years which has already expired and no fresh agreement has been entered into by the State authorities and the appellants. As such, the period for which the agreements were entered into by the State authorities and the appellants had already come to an end which the appellants have neither questioned in the writ petition nor sought any sort of relief claimed in the writ petition filed before this Court seeking renewal / extension of agreement in their favour for supply of ready to eat food. Therefore, at present, the appellants herein have no legal right existing in their favour much less enforceable right in the writ petition to challenge the order dated 26-11-2021. 40. It has now been contended on behalf of the respondents that the writ petitioners / appellants herein have no statutory or vested right in their favour to question the order dated 26-11-2021 and seek direction in their favour which in fact has not been sought for except questioning the order dated 26-11-2021. 41. The Act of 2013 had already came into force with effect from 10-9-2013. 41. The Act of 2013 had already came into force with effect from 10-9-2013. Sections 5 & 6 of the Act of 2013 only bear reference to implementing agency i.e. local anganwadi centres and no reference has been made to self-help groups. The Rules of 2015 substituted by the Rules of 2017, though refer to engagement of self-help groups, have already done away with de-notification of the Rules of 2015/ 2017, which were substituted by the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021 followed by the Rules of 2022, which do not provide for participation of self-help groups and also do not bar the participation of authorities like respondent No.5 and obligation to provide Take Home Ration has completely been given to the State Government under Section 7 read with Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013 and as per the present Rules of 2022 along with Nutritional Standards as specified in the Second Schedule of the Act of 2013. As such, at present, the writ appellants have no legal right in their favour to seek the quashment of order dated 26-11-2021 and there is no legal right asserted in the writ petitions capable of being enforced by way of writ petitions in terms of the Act of 2013 read with the Rules of 2021. 42.The next submission that has been vehemently pressed into service by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ appellants is the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat (supra) in which heavy reliance has been placed, whereas it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 Nigam that Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (supra), would hold the field. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the decision of the Government dated 26-11-2021 is the considered policy decision of the State Government which could be targeted on certain specific grounds and judicial review of the same is extremely limited as held in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. (supra), which has neither been pleaded nor any ground exists to challenge the same in these writ appeals, therefore, the writ appeals deserve to be dismissed. 43. 43. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat (supra) were primarily concerned with the challenge to a tender notice issued by the State of Maharashtra which on account of some tender conditions contained in Clauses VII(h), (j) & (l) and Clauses X(e) & (g) of the tender notice, have held to have had the effect of ousting smaller players from the field on account of prescription such as annual turnover, etc. and were arbitrary. Their Lordships also referred to the decision in Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (supra) and diluted the same in two instances namely (i) it was not mandatory to follow the recipe as noted therein since it was only suggestive and not directive and (ii) there was no specific recommendation on part of the Central Government to use extrusion technology and any other specific technology for preparation of take home ration. The Supreme Court also referred to certain orders dated 8-5-2002, 7-10-2004, 13-12-2006, 22-4-2009, 6-8-2013, 1-9-2014, etc. passed in PUCL case as well as reports by the Court appointed Commissioners in PUCL case (supra). The first such report was submitted in October, 2002, followed by the second such report in March, 2003, the third in May, 2003, fourth in August, 2003, fifth in August, 2004, sixth in December, 2005, seventh in November, 2007, eighth in October, 2008, ninth in September, 2009 and tenth in January, 2012. Additionally, reference was also made to reports concerning State of Maharashtra in February, 2012 and November, 2012. As such, it is quite vivid that all such reports relied upon were prior to notification and implementation of the Act of 2013 and in light of the Three Judges’ Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Dipika Jagatram Sahani (supra), the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat (supra) is clearly distinguishable in light of the Act of 2013 which came into force on 10-9-2013, and the Rules made thereunder to the facts of present case. 44. 44. On the basis of the aforesaid legal analysis and discussion, we are of the considered opinion that upon promulgation of the Act of 2013 with effect from 10-9-2013, the local Anganwadi Centres have been given statutory recognition as defined in Section 2(1) of the Act of 2013 and further, Section 4 of the Act of 2013 has created a statutory right of every pregnant woman and lactating mother meal, free of charge, during pregnancy and six months after the child birth. Section 5 of the Act of 2013 creates a right of children in the age group of six months to six year, age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local Anganwadi Centres. Section 6 of the Act of 2013 provides for prevention and management of child malnutrition and obliges the State Government through the local anganwadi, to identify and provide meals, free of charge, to children who suffer from malnutrition, so as to meet the nutritional standards; specified in Schedule II. Section 7 provides for implementation of schemes for realisation of entitlements. It is now statutory obligation of the Centre and the States to provide for nutritional support to the pregnant women and lactating mothers, nutritional support to children and to take steps to identify and provide meals for children who suffer from malnutrition. As such, the Centre as well as the States are statutorily obliged to implement statutory obligation as conferred under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 2013. The nutritional support is required to be of the nutritional standards which have already been laid down to Schedule II of the Act of 2013. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 also makes the State Government responsible for implementation and monitoring of the schemes of various Ministries and Departments of the Central Government in accordance with guidelines issued by the Central Government for each scheme, and their own schemes, for ensuring food security to the targeted beneficiaries in their State. 45.Their Lordships of the Supreme Court (Three Judges Bench) in Dipika Jagatram Sahani (supra) have clearly mandated that the Government has a constitutional obligation to preserve human life and good health of its citizens is its primary duty, and it is the fundamental right of the persons enumerated in Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 2013, to health/right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has further been mandated that the Government must supply the nutritious food in the real sense bearing in mind the provisions of the Act of 2013. 46. Furthermore, under the Rules of 2015, the Government was obliged to engage the services of self-help groups so also under the Rules of 2017, but thereafter, in the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021, it has been omitted and further, in the Rules of 2022 also, same was followed and even in the Act of 2013, no statutory recognition has been given to self-help groups and it has been given to Anganwadi Centres. In view of the provisions contained in Sections 7, 24 & 38 of the Act of 2013, the Government is duty bound to provide quality Take Home Rations as defined under the Act of 2013 read with Schedule II and the Rules of 2022, and the same is supposed to be consumed by pregnant women, lactating mothers and children in the age group of 6 months to 3 years, age group of 3 to 6 years. Furthermore, it is the considered policy decision of the Government to provide nutritional food to the targeted group in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 4, 5 & 6 read with Sections 7 & 24 of the Act of 2013, as mandated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dipika Jagatram Sahani (supra). 47. More particularly, in the writ petitions, the writ petitioners have only pleaded that if order dated 26-11-2021 is implemented, 3 lakhs women would become unemployed and no specific challenge has been made to order dated 26-11-2021 on the ground of which a policy decision can be challenged i.e. inconsistent with the Constitution of India and laws made thereunder, or it suffers from mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness. However, no such ground has been pleaded in the writ petitions except pleading that continuation of self-help groups will promote self-help groups to continue in the field and furthermore, the writ petitioners / writ appellants in W.A.No.289/2022 have entered into agreement with the officers of the State authority for a period of three years as per agreement Annexure R-1 the period of which has already expired and no new agreement has been entered into by the writ petitioners and State authorities and as such, they have no legally enforceable right at present. 48. 48. As such, finally, we are of the conclusion that the writ petition, which has earlier been filed as public interest litigation has already been converted to writ petition (civil) and it no longer remained a public interest litigation in light of order dated 17-1-2022. The Act of 2013 came into force with effect from 10-9-2013 in which legal recognition has not been given to self-help groups, however, local anganwadi centres have been recognised by virtue of Section 2(1) of the Act of 2013. The Rules of 2015 followed by the Rules of 2017 also provide for engagement of self-help groups, however, these Rules have been de-notified by the Streamlining Guidelines of 2021 and the Rules of 2022 and no recognition has been given to self-help groups, as such, neither in the Act of 2013 nor in the Rules made thereunder, self-help groups have been given legal recognition. The appellants’ period of contract as per Annexure R-1 had already come to an end and in the writ appeals, there is no prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing renewal of lease and as such, there is no pleading that by implementation of the order dated 26-11-2021, their legal or constitutional right has been violated except praying that by implementation of order dated 26-11-2021, 3 lakhs women would become unemployed. New plea has been sought to be introduced in the rejoinder which is not permissible in law as no such pleading has been made by the writ petitioners / writ appellants, more particularly, the writ petition has been ceased to be public interest litigation by order dated 17-1-2022. Right of persons mentioned in Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 2013 has been recognised statutorily by the Act of 2013 read with the Second Schedule and the rules made thereunder. By virtue of Section 7 read with Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the Government has constitutional duty to provide nutritional food to children in the age group of 6 months to 3 years, age group of 3 to 6 years, every pregnant woman and lactating mother, which the Government is obliged to provide in view of the Act of 2013 followed by the mandate issued by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dipika Jagatram Sahani (supra). The decision of the Government dated 26-11-2021 is a considered policy decision which cannot be challenged lightly, more particularly, in absence of appropriate pleading in the duly constituted petition. 49. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that all the writ appeals deserve to be and are accordingly, dismissed for specific and different reasons assigned herein-above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). However, it is made clear that we have not approved broad observations on certain aspects made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.