Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

KAHC010074912022_1

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-09-17 17:35:25
  • 106
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State Government's orders and circulars dated 24.02.2018, 15.05.2021, 20.05.2021 and 02.07.2020 are contrary to Supreme Court directions and ICDS guidelines, and whether they adversely affect the functioning of MSPTCs.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Contractors not to be used for supply of nutrition in Anganwadis
  • ICDS funds to be spent through village communities
  • self-help groups and Mahila Mandals
  • Supplementary food to be fortified to meet 50% RDA
  • MSPTCs must obtain technical assistance from BIS-licensed women groups without undermining their autonomy
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (KAR) (04) 38

Writ Petition No. 3522 of 2022 (GM-RES-PIL) connected with Writ Petition No. 11004 of 2020 and Writ Petition No. 15767 of 2021

2022-05-27

Ritu Raj Awasthi, S.R. Krishna Kumar

Rohan Veeranna Tigadi, G.V. Shashi Kumar, A.S. Ponnanna, V.G. Bhanuprakash, Arjun Sarathy, Lakshmy Iyengar, M. Jagadeesh

Sangeeta Gadagin (WP 3522/2022), Sanjivini Mahila Vikasa Seva Sangh (WP 11004/2020), Harihareshwara Mahila Udyoga Matthu Seva Sangha (WP 15767/2021)

State of Karnataka and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Public Interest Litigation and writ petitions challenging government orders/circulars regarding implementation of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme in Karnataka, particularly the role of Mahila Supplementary Nutrition Production Training Centers (MSPTCs).

Remedy Sought

Quashing of government orders dated 24.02.2018, 15.05.2021, 20.05.2021, and circular dated 02.07.2020; directions for proper implementation of ICDS scheme, enrollment of all eligible beneficiaries, and ensuring quality fortified supplementary nutrition through MSPTCs.

Filing Reason

Alleged violation of Supreme Court directions in W.P.(C) 196/2001 and Central Government guidelines, poor quality of supplementary nutrition, and government actions undermining the autonomy of MSPTCs by forcing procurement through government agencies and entering into agreements with BIS-licensed women groups.

Previous Decisions

Supreme Court order dated 07.10.2004 in W.P.(C) 196/2001 directing State to avoid contractors and utilize village communities, self-help groups, and Mahila Mandals; Karnataka High Court stay order in W.P.No.16153/2019 staying operation of order dated 24.02.2018.

Issues

Whether the State Government's orders/circulars violate Supreme Court directions to avoid usage of contractors and to prefer self-help groups and Mahila Mandals? Whether the MSPTCs' autonomy is unduly restricted by mandating procurement through government agencies and forcing technical assistance agreements? Whether the supplementary nutrition supplied meets the required 50% Recommended Dietary Allowance and fortification norms?

Judgment Excerpts

the Apex Court has issued detailed guidelines regarding implementation of the ICDS scheme; amongst other things, the Central and State Government were directed not to use contractors and preferably implement the scheme making use of village communities, self help groups and Mahila Mandals. the State Government directed the MSPTCs to procure grams and pulses from the Karnataka State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and vegetables from the Karnataka State Co-operative Consumer Federation Limited (Janata Bazar)

Procedural History

The ICDS scheme was introduced in 1975. The Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 196/2001 directed State Governments to avoid contractors and use self-help groups. In Karnataka, 137 MSPTCs were established. On 24.02.2018, the State issued an order directing MSPTCs to procure from designated corporations; this was stayed by the High Court in W.P.16153/2019. On 02.07.2020, a circular was issued allowing MSPTCs to enter into agreements with BIS-licensed women groups for technical assistance. The petitioners challenged various orders and circulars through three writ petitions, which were clubbed and heard together.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
ICDS Scheme MSPTC Anganwadi Supplementary Nutrition Fortification Supreme Court Directions Public Interest Litigation Right to Food Mahila Mandals Contractors Prohibition

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Bank's Petition Challenging Setting Aside of Auction Sale Under SARFAESI Act — Non-Compliance with Notice Requirements Under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act Renders Sale Invalid. DRT and DRAT Orders Upheld, Bank ... 2026-09-21 18:13:58
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Distance Requirement Between General and Hazardous Cargo at Container Freight Stations. Circular 4/2011 and Public Notice 8/2011 prescribing 30-meter distance held valid under Customs Act, 1962 and Env... 2026-09-21 18:13:56
Categories
Popular Tags
Writ Petition Natural Justice acquittal murder Compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 11 Arbitration Application for Appointment of Arbitrato...

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Central Excise Refund Interest Dispute Under Section ...

Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Limitation Dispute — Suit Remitted for Fresh Consider...

Supreme Court Refers Jurisdiction Conflict in Trade Marks Act and Commercial Courts Act to...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Tender Eligibility Dispute — Clarifies Judicial Revie...

Supreme Court Rejects Application Under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act Due to Limitat...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Income Tax Dispute — Jurisdiction under Section 263 U...

Lost Your Password?