# Shipra Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 553
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-01
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 960 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shipra-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53731
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

C.S.C., Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Ram Kumar
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter
pertains
to
lack
of
proper
implementation of the Integrated Child
Development Services (ICDS) Scheme,
resulting in malnutrition of pregnant
women, lactating mothers, and children
aged six months to six years, and
compliance
with
the
National
Food
Security Act, 2013.

Headnotes
Public Interest Litigation - ICDS Scheme -
Implementation - Statutory Mandate -
State bound to ensure compliance with
Sections 4, 5 and Schedule II of the
National
Food
Security
Act,
2013
-
Procurement Process - Transparency -
States must follow General Financial
Rules, 2017 and Vigilance Guidelines in
procurement of Take-Home Ration (THR) -
Empowerment of women SHGs must not
violate statutory mandates - Supply of dry
ration in place of THR and hot cooked
meal impermissible under Act and Rules -
State to ensure accuracy on Poshan
Tracker and compliance with statutory
norms.
Held: State shall ensure complete compliance
with Sections 4, 5 and Schedule II of the
National Food Security Act, 2013 in a timebound manner - Procurement and supply of
THR and hot cooked meals shall conform strictly
to Rules, 2022, General Financial Rules, 2017,
and Vigilance Guidelines - Supply of dry ration in
place of THR or hot cooked meals is not
permissible - State must empower SHGs
genuinely,
ensuring
participation
of
Gram
Panchayats without compromising statutory
norms - Poshan Tracker data shall be accurate
and consistent with Anganwadi records - Copy
of the 3-Member Committee Report to be
forwarded to the Ministry of Women & Child
Development for verification and corrective
measures - order dated 20.02.2025, affirmed by
the Supreme Court, shall form part of this
judgment
for
necessary
guidance.
(Paras
65,66,80,81,82) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Maa Santhoshi Swa Sahayata Samuh v. Union of
India, W.P.(C) No. 5063 of 2021; Renuka
Mata Mahila Bachat Gat v. State of Maharashtra,
W.P. No. 5942 of 202.

List of Acts
National Food Security Act, 2013; Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006; Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006;
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; General
Financial Rules, 2017; Supplementary Nutrition
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Provisions, Procurement and Monitoring) Rules,
2022

List of Keywords
ICDS Scheme; Take Home Ration (THR); Hot
Cooked Meal; Malnutrition; Self-Help Groups
(SHGs); Juristic person; Poshan Tracker; Quality
Assurance; Nutritional Standards; Procurement
Process; Women Empowerment.

Case Arising From
Public Interest Litigations under Article 226 of
the
Constitution
challenging
the
nonimplementation of the ICDS Scheme and
distribution of dry ration contrary to the National
Food Security Act, 2013, in the State of Uttar
Pradesh; arising from deficiencies noticed in
implementation of the Supplementary Nutrition
Programme (SNP) and the Court's earlier order
dated 20.02.2025, which the Supreme Court
later affirmed.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Paavan Awasthi, Bhanu Bajpai, Shobhit Mohan
Shukla, Virendra Kumar Dubey.
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Ram Kumar
Singh, C.S.C.,
A.S.G., Raj Kumar Singh,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,938 of 92,831. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39938 for what follows._

8 All. Shipra Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I
accepts the argument raised by learned
Senior Counsel for appellants and rejects
the argument raised by learned counsel for
respondents for some of legal heirs, since
he was failed to show any judgment
contrary of position of law on the issue as
referred above.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
present Second Appeal is allowed and
learned Trial Court is directed to return the
plaint and it is now up to appellants to
present it before the Competent Court.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 553
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 960 of
2024
&
Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 21609 of
2021

Shipra Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Paavan Awasthi, Bhanu Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Ram Kumar
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter
pertains
to
lack
of
proper
implementation of the Integrated Child
Development Services (ICDS) Scheme,
resulting in malnutrition of pregnant
women, lactating mothers, and children
aged six months to six years, and
compliance
with
the
National
Food
Security Act, 2013.

Headnotes
Public Interest Litigation - ICDS Scheme -
Implementation - Statutory Mandate -
State bound to ensure compliance with
Sections 4, 5 and Schedule II of the
National
Food
Security
Act,
2013
-
Procurement Process - Transparency -
States must follow General Financial
Rules, 2017 and Vigilance Guidelines in
procurement of Take-Home Ration (THR) -
Empowerment of women SHGs must not
violate statutory mandates - Supply of dry
ration in place of THR and hot cooked
meal impermissible under Act and Rules -
State to ensure accuracy on Poshan
Tracker and compliance with statutory
norms.
Held: State shall ensure complete compliance
with Sections 4, 5 and Schedule II of the
National Food Security Act, 2013 in a timebound manner - Procurement and supply of
THR and hot cooked meals shall conform strictly
to Rules, 2022, General Financial Rules, 2017,
and Vigilance Guidelines - Supply of dry ration in
place of THR or hot cooked meals is not
permissible - State must empower SHGs
genuinely,
ensuring
participation
of
Gram
Panchayats without compromising statutory
norms - Poshan Tracker data shall be accurate
and consistent with Anganwadi records - Copy
of the 3-Member Committee Report to be
forwarded to the Ministry of Women & Child
Development for verification and corrective
measures - order dated 20.02.2025, affirmed by
the Supreme Court, shall form part of this
judgment
for
necessary
guidance.
(Paras
65,66,80,81,82) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Maa Santhoshi Swa Sahayata Samuh v. Union of
India, W.P.(C) No. 5063 of 2021; Renuka
Mata Mahila Bachat Gat v. State of Maharashtra,
W.P. No. 5942 of 202.

List of Acts
National Food Security Act, 2013; Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006; Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006;
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; General
Financial Rules, 2017; Supplementary Nutrition
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Provisions, Procurement and Monitoring) Rules,
2022

List of Keywords
ICDS Scheme; Take Home Ration (THR); Hot
Cooked Meal; Malnutrition; Self-Help Groups
(SHGs); Juristic person; Poshan Tracker; Quality
Assurance; Nutritional Standards; Procurement
Process; Women Empowerment.

Case Arising From
Public Interest Litigations under Article 226 of
the
Constitution
challenging
the
nonimplementation of the ICDS Scheme and
distribution of dry ration contrary to the National
Food Security Act, 2013, in the State of Uttar
Pradesh; arising from deficiencies noticed in
implementation of the Supplementary Nutrition
Programme (SNP) and the Court's earlier order
dated 20.02.2025, which the Supreme Court
later affirmed.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Paavan Awasthi, Bhanu Bajpai, Shobhit Mohan
Shukla, Virendra Kumar Dubey.
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Ram Kumar
Singh, C.S.C.,
A.S.G., Raj Kumar Singh,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.)
&
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

(1) The subject matter of the present
writ petitions filed in public interest is lack
of proper implementation of ICDS Scheme
resulting in malnutrition of the pregnant
women, lactating mothers and children
aged 6 months to 6 years.

(2) An order was passed by this Court
on 20.02.2025 wherein certain deficiencies
in implementing the ICDS scheme were
highlighted
and
directions
were
accordingly issued. In the spirit of the
directions
issued,
a
three-member
Committee constituted by the Court was
required to submit its report regarding the
ground realities of implementing the
Supplementary
Nutrition
Programme
(SNP) on or before 25.03.2025 which
period was extended thereafter looking to
the ongoing progress. For beginning with
the necessary exercise to draw the report, a
sum of Rs. 25,000/- was made payable to
each member of the committee from the
fund
of
U.P.
State
Legal
Services
Authority. The final report was filed by the
Committee and the same was taken on
record vide order dated 07.07.2025 which,
for ready reference, is extracted below:

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties at some length.

2. By a detailed order passed on
20.02.2025, a committee was constituted to
submit the report on the implementation of
ICDS scheme in the State of U.P.

3. Pursuant to the order dated
20.02.2025, the Committee has submitted
its
report
through
Chairman/Dr.G.C.
Prakash, I.A.S. (Retd.), and the same is
taken on record. The Chairman of the
Committee is present to assist the Court.

4. Let all the parties be provided
a copy of the report submitted by the
Committee free of cost within two days who
may file their views/submissions on the
report within ten days so that the matter
may
be
concluded
in
the
light
of
submissions made.

5. Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocate
holding brief for Sri Ram Kumar Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
No.4/U.P.State Rural Livelihood Mission
submitted that the opposite party No.4 does
not wish to press the application for recall
8 All. Shipra Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
of the order dated 20.02.2025. Since the
said application is not on record, the
Registry is directed to place it on record on
the next date of listing. The U.P. State
Rural Livelihood Mission is directed to
submit the complete details of 204 SelfHelp Groups inclusive of their capacity
building status.

6. Since the report as directed
has come to be filed before this Court,
therefore, the rights of the minor children
upto the age of six years and lactating
mothers under the ICDS scheme are bound
to be viewed in the light of the relevant
statutory provisions, on the vital areas of
quality
and
quantity
checks
besides
achieving the real target of service to the
beneficiaries.

7. This Court after hearing the
parties proceeds to frame the following
questions for consideration:-

(i) Whether the implementation of
ICDS Scheme through 204 SHGs in the
State of U.P. has an established base of
processing units meeting the quantity and
quality checks under the Rules and
Regulations applicable in this behalf.

(ii) Whether the supply of dry
ration through NAFED as an interim
measure stands in consonance with the
scheme as well as the law applicable in
the matter of implementing the ICDS
Scheme.

(iii)
As
to
whether
the
accountability of SHGs for implementing
the Scheme in absence of they being a
juristic person, can be fixed upon the group
collectively or severally and the procedure
in this behalf.

8. We appreciate the efforts of the
committee to have brought on record the
relevant inputs and data and the exercise
undertaken by the committee deserves to be
acknowledged.
For
quantifying
the
expenditure incurred for travelling and
other expenses, necessary order deserves to
be passed within scope of Legal Services
Authority Act, 1987.

9. Any further modular change
may not be effected by the opposite parties
without seeking leave of the Court and
without considering the report placed on
record. The arrangement as affirmed by the
Apex Court shall also remain operative
until decision of the matter.

10. List/put up on 17.7.2025, for
further hearing"

(3) On taking the three member
committee report on record, this Court
framed three questions in paragraph-7 of
the order extracted above and the matter
was directed to be listed for further hearing.

(4) When the matter came up before
this Court on 17.07.2025, learned counsel
for the State raised an objection to the
effect that further hearing of the matter be
deferred as the State of U.P. had firstly
filed an SLP before the apex court arising
out of the order dated 20.02.2025 and
secondly, the Court may not proceed until
the application for recall of order dated
20.2.25 was decided. Until the date of
passing of order dated 07.07.2025, the State
Government neither raised any objection as
regards the credentials of three member
committee nor was the application for
recall of order pressed. The UPSRLM had
rather made a prayer for not pressing the
recall application filed by them.
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(5) The Apex Court on hearing the
SLP arising out of the order dated
20.2.2025, disposed of the same in terms of
the following order on 21.7.2025:-

"1. Delay condoned.

2. Mr. K. M. Natraj, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the 1 petitioner-State, submits that an
application for recall of the impugned
order dated 20th February, 2025 is
pending on the file of the High Court; since
such application is not being heard and
decided, the petitioner-State has been
compelled to approach this Court.

3. Presently, we see no reason to
interfere with the impugned order. The
special leave petition stands disposed of,
without expressing any opinion on merits.

4. We are informed that the High
Court has fixed 25th July, 2025 as the date
for hearing Mr. K. M. Natraj. In view
thereof, we observe that the High Court
may consider the desirability of deciding
the
recall
application
first
before
proceeding with the matter on merits.

5. All points are kept open for
being urged before the High Court.

6. Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand closed."

(6) Looking to the fact that credentials
of the committee members who had
submitted
the
report
were
strongly
questioned by the State of U.P., therefore,
this Court deemed it proper not to rely
upon the same and in alternative proposed
to proceed with the matter on merit.
Learned counsel for the parties conceded to
the suggestion and proceeded to argue on
merit. The recall application became
irrelevant, therefore, did not call for any
further order to be passed on the same.

(7) The hearing of the case was thus
resumed and learned counsel for the parties
were heard at length on 23.07.2025,
24.07.2025, 28.07.2025 and finally the
arguments concluded on 29.07.2025. The
Apex Court's order passed on 17.07.2025
mentioning date of hearing as 25.07.2025
instead of 23.07.2025 appears to be an
inadvertent error, may be, due to wrong
information given by the parties.

(8) On the aspect of the quantum of
legal fee/charges to be paid to the members
of the Committee, learned counsel for the
parties agreed for the exercise of discretion
by the Court as the pain taken by the
Committee to formulate an exhaustive
report was conceded by all.

(9)
We
accordingly
direct
the
Secretary, State Legal Services Authority
to pay each of the member of the
Committee a sum of Rs. 50,000/- over and
above the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, as was
quantified at the initial stage, within a
period of three months from the date of
receiving a copy of this order.

(10) Sri Nataraj, learned Senior
Counsel for the State of U.P. based his
exhautive arguments mainly on two points.
It was firstly contended that in the matter of
policy making in furtherance of ICDS
Scheme, the State has unfettered powers to
formulate the same and wisdom of policy
makers is not amenable to judicial review
unless the same is found to contravene or
violate the mandate of law or rules and
regulations
framed
by
the
Central
Government
under
its
rule
making
authority.
8 All. Shipra Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557

(11) In this context, it was argued
before us that the ICDS Scheme being a
part and parcel of Food Security Act, 2013,
is implemented by the State strictly in
accordance with law and there is no room
for interference on the questions framed by
the Court.

(12) Learned counsel for the State of
U.P., in order to substantiate the argument
put-forth, took us through various provisions
of Food Security Act, 2013 as well as the
Rules made thereunder to emphasize that the
self-help groups, as were operating in the
State of U.P. under the guidelines of State
Rural Livelihood Mission (in short 'SRLM')
are a permissible class or entity who are
assigned the responsibility of implementing
ICDS Scheme under the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) between the State and
the U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission.

(13) It was further informed that the
U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission had
provided a base of 204 Micro Enterprises
for production of nutritional food, as per
the standards fixed under the Statute and
the same was supplied to the children
below six years of age as well as the
lactating mothers and pregnant women
through the Anganwadi Centres.

(14) In other words, the submission
put-forth by learned counsel for the State of
U.P. is to the effect that once the self-help
groups are formed at the base level in the
form of Micro Enterprises, the obligations
are carried out by the SRLM under a MoU
therefore there is sufficient compliance
made by the State which stands compliant
to the Statute and Rules framed thereunder.

(15) According to the learned Senior
Counsel, the very questions framed by this
Court did not flow out of any incompliant
situation, therefore, the very effort of judicial
review on the questions framed was a futile
exercise.

(16) Learned counsel for Union of India
has argued that the Central Government and
the State are the two partners financing the
ICDS Scheme and the State Government is
bound to follow the rules and regulations
framed by the Central Government.

(17) Learned counsel for Union of India,
in order to demonstrate that the nutrient food
supplied to the children and lactating mothers
has
been
specified
by
the
Central
Government, referred to various paras of the
short counter affidavit filed by them which
seek to re-emphasize on the observance of
Rules and Regulations framed by the Central
Government.

(18) Ms Deepa Ranjan, Director of U.P.
State Rural Livelihood Mission was also
heard in person and she brought to our notice
that 204 micro-enterprises are functioning for
the processing of nutrient food for the
beneficiaries and the liability to the extent of
20% beneficiaries under the scheme was
carried out by raising capital from amongst
the members of the self-help groups working
under the Scheme and the capital so raised
was utilized for procurement and processing
of the nutrient food by the aforesaid 204
enterprises which was delivered to the
beneficiaries at the base level through
Anganbadi centers.

(19) It was also stated that the Micro
Enterprises are registered units under the
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act)
having an ID issued under the GST, Act
and necessary registration under the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was also
ensured.
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(20) The details placed on record,
however, do not show as to how 204 Micro
Enterprises ever achieved the targeted
processing of nutrient food and supply
thereof to the respective Anganbadi Centers
within their jurisdiction. The service
actualised within the range of 20%
beneficiaries assignment to SRLM under a
MoU has remained deficient both in the
matter of supply of dry ration and the hot
cooked meal service remains zero as per
the own portal of the State. The remaining
80% of the beneficiaries are supplied dry
ration procured through NAFED which is
impermissible under the Rules, 2022.

(21) It is an admitted position given
out to this Court by the officer present that
hot cooked meal was not served in any of
the
Anganbadi
Centers
against
20%
responsibility held by the SRLM through
the
support
system
of
204
Micro
Enterprises and the resultant deficiency was
carried
forward
over
the
succeeding
months. This was an alarming information
which was projected before this Court
making the questions framed by the Court
more relevant and of public importance. Sri
Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate,
looking to the assistance of officer present
has argued that any directions issued by
this Court to effectuate the implementation
of the scheme shall be duly honoured,
which,
in
our
humble
view
was
unconvincing.

(22) After closure of the submissions,
the State has filed written submissions
containing the following pleas:-

"1. Present PIL is a Proxy;
Credentials of petitioner questionable

Petitioner in the instant case
appears to have filed the instant petition as
a proxy for big players having interplay
with ICDS, operations in Southern India.
The credentials of the Petitioner are itself
misleading,
incomplete
and
eye-brow
raising. While the petitioner has declared
that she is daughter of Shri Satya Prakash
Mishra and is residing in Khiri, U.P., she
has withheld her husband's name, her
financial background, or her income or the
sources of income, the sources of funding
for the present litigation before this
Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

a.
The
four
experience
certificates, at pages 45, 46, 47 & 48 of the
WP) filed to show that she has worked as
volunteer with NGOs are prima facie bogus
and do not inspire any confidence. Two
certificates (at pages 45 & 46) dated
02.02.2019 and 15.02.2020 issued from
Lucknow do not even disclose as to in
which
project
the
Petitioner
had
volunteered and at which location, while
she
was
undergoing
education
at
Lakhimpur Khiri.

b. Certificate at pages 47 & 48 of
writ petition are even more mercurial
having been issued by a trust and a society
both located in Bangalore, Karnataka.

c. These certificates do not even
disclose the (I) dates or (ii) the period or
(ii) the location or (iv) the program in
which the Petitioner may have volunteered.

2.
 Amicus curiae

The appointment of Dr LP
Mishra, a very seasoned and highly
respected Advocate at the Bar, amicus
curiae vide order 17.07.2025 cannot be
said to be in accordance with law as he has
filed his Vakalatnama in the instant case,
8 All. Shipra Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
559
with an application for impleadment
representing a company, which company
was going to be directly impacted if the
tender conditions as suggested/proposed by
the report of the committee were accepted
as, in his submissions, the conditions of
RFP as proposed in the report of the 3
member committee were tailor made for a
particular company who, as per his
preliminary submissions, was also the
sponsorer of the insant proxy PIL.
However, he was given extensive hearing
on 29.07.2025. In such circumstances it
may not be in fitness of proceedings to rely
upon submissions of Dr.L.P. Mishra,
Advocate as an amicus curiae as he could
be in possessions of information shared by
his client which may have resultant adverse
impact on parties at lis. Also, his
appearance in support of company only
lends credence to the proxy nature of the
instant writ petition who are using this
court as a platform for gaining entry into
ICDS operatives in UP.

3.
Non
affording
of
Opportunity of hearing to State of UP :
Hurried closure of proceedings

The hearing of the instant PIL
was carried out in an extremely hurried
manner without due opportunity of hearing
to the State of UP, with this Hon'ble Court
shutting
out
counsel
form
making
submissions. Though the hearing on 29th
July, 2025 was stretched till 5:45 p,m but
the mic of the learned Senior Counsel
representing the State of UP present before
the Hon'ble Bench was not even permitted
to make any oral submissions and instead
asked to furnish written submissions. Such
denial of opportunity to both the learned
counsel representing the State renders the
proceedings contaminated and vitiated. In a
matter of policy decision in which the
Court may be lacking expertise sufficient
opportunity ought to have been given
which was wrongfully denied.

4. No material on record to
interfere in the policy domain of the
State and Union

a. The Hon'ble High Court while
issuing notice in the present PIL at the very
first instance vide order dated 13.11.2024
ordered

"Director, Deference Food and
Research Laboratory, Mysore having its
network all over the country to make
necessary study of Aaganbadi Centres in
the State of U.P. both in the matter of
procurement of specified nutritious food
and supply thereof to the respective centres
including all its aspects e.g. quantity,
frequency of supply and its quality and the
mechanism operating as on date. The
delays in the supply, if any, may also be
studied and apprised to the Court in the
report so drawn as well as the cause of
delays."

b. Although inquiry by the DFRL
ordered ex-parte at the first instance,
missed out on the fact that the aspects
which
have
been
ordered
to
be
studied/inquired into by the DFRL fell
under the "Policy Domain of the State".
The Department/State co-operated with
DFLR for the inquiry.

c. The report dated 07.01.2025 of
the DFRL on record, vindicates the way in
which the scheme is being implemented in
the State of UP.

d. The second recall application
filed before the Hon'ble High Court on
23.07.2025 raised the issued w.r.t each of
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the 3 Members of the Committee and why
their report is maligned and not acceptable.
Upon highlighting the grounds as to why
the report of the committee cannot be relied
upon (especially with the chairman of the
committee facing corruption allegations),
the Hon'ble High Court agreed to not rrely
upon the report, though no such finding
was recorded in any subsequent order.

e. Now that the report of the 3
member committee stands shelved/removed
from record and is not to be referred to or
relied upon, there survives no material
except the report dated 07.01.2025 of the
DFRL which only vindicates the way in
which the scheme is being implemented in
the State of UP, while suggesting some
areas of improvement, which are being
worked upon.

5.
 The issues framed

a. That while taking the report of
the 3 Member Committee on record, the
following 3 issues were framed for
consideration:

(i) Whether the implementation
of ICDS Scheme through 204 SHGs in the
State of U.P. has an established base of
processing units meeting the quantity and
quality checks under the Rules and
Regulations applicable in this behalf.

(ii) Whether the supply of dry
ration through NAFED as an interim
measure stands in consonance with the
scheme as well as the law applicable in the
matter of implementing the ICDS Scheme.

(iii)As
to
whether
the
accountability of SHGs for implementing
the Scheme in absence of they being a
juristic person, can be fixed upon the group
collectively or severally and the procedure
in this behalf.

b. That since the Hon'ble High
Court is vehemently against the usage of
SHGs for implementing the objectives of
the Scheme it is essential to highlight the
true structure of how SHGs fall in the amb
it of functionaries in order to implement the
scheme.

c. The clarification has been
provided in the Affidavit filed on behalf of
UPSRLM as well as the documents
received
from
the
department.
The
following information comes to light while
discussing the issue of using SHGs for
implementation of the scheme:

"The 204 Take Home Ration
(THR) units are not run by the 204 SHGs
but actually run by the 204 Association of
Peron (AOP)/SHG Micro Enterprises. Each
AOP/SHG Micro Enterprises is formed by
300 SHGs of a block coming from all the
03 CLF of the block, who have collectively
resolved to form a micro enterprise by
signing a notarized agreement as mentioned
in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
for
formation
of
AOP/SHG
microenterprise issued by the government by the
GO
number
312/38-6-2021308/LC/2020/|TC1 dated 17.07.2021 and
GO
number
541/38-6-2021308/LC/2020/TC1 dated 20 October 2021."

d. Hence it is evident that the
complete issue regarding the validity of the
SHGs relies upon:

(i) The judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vaishno Mahila Bachat;

(ii) The GO number 312/38-62021-308/LC/2020/TC1 dated 17.07.201;
8 All. Shipra Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561

(iii) The GO number 541/38-62021-308/LC/2020/TC1 dated 20 October
2021.

e. That, as has been stated by
UPSRLM in its affidavit of compliance, the
204 THR Centres "are not run by SHGs"
rather
there
is
a
system
of
SHG
Microenterprises.

f.
 On structure:

That with respect to 1st issue,
the key features of the schemes is that one
woman member from each of the 10-20
rural poor household are brought under
the Self-Help Group (SHG) Network.
Women SHG group would have backlinkage arrangements. 0510 SHGs at the
village level would be federated as
village organization and 20-30 village
organization are federated at the block
level as a cluster level Federation (CLF)
which is in such a way that each cluster
level federation has around 300 SHGs
office bearers federated in such a way
that each administrative block has 04
cluster level federation representing all
the SHGs formed in all the Gram
Panchayats of the blocks. The SHG-VOCLF is a pyramid structure which the
SHGs are at the base of the pyramid, VO
at intermediate level and CLF is at the
top of pyramid.

g. That for the 2nd issue of
consideration framed by the Honb'ble High
Court in relation to the supply of Dry
Ration i.e., "Whether the supply of dry
ration through NAFED as an interim
measure stands in consonance with the
scheme as well as the law applicable in the
matter of implementing the ICDS Scheme"
it is essential to point out before the
Hon'ble High Court that:

(i) Firstly, that it has been
consistent stand of government through
affidavits filed in connected PIL before this
Hon'ble Court that raw ration and semi
processed fortified ration are NOT same.
The
fortified
ration
meets
out
the
requirement of the nutritional value/norms,
once it is processed by virtue of addition of
micro and macro nutrients. In 43 districts
of State of Uttar Praesh, Recipe based Take
Home Ration is given which is mandate of
the Rules of 2022 read in conjunction with
National Food Security Act, 2013 and in
rest 32 districts of the State, semi-processed
fortified ration is being supplied which is
not a dry ration as provided through fair
price shop in public distribution system.
The fortified ration meets the requirement
of nutritional norms and is vetted by
National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad
(NIN);

(ii)
And
secondly
that,
the
beneficiaries aren't being deprived of the
nutrient norms by providing semi processed
fortified ration other than THR. To ensure
the
raw
rations
provided
to
ICDS
beneficiaries through NAFED align with
applicable regulations, fortification has
been implemented for wheat dalia, edible
oil, and rice along with alignment to NFSA,
2013 norms. The ration combinations,
formulated jointly by the World Food
Programme (WFP) and UNICEF, have
been
rigorously
developed
to
meet
specified protetin and caloric norms has
received approval from the National
Institute of Nutrition (NIN);

(iii) That as for the manner of
procurement i.e., procuring the ration from
NAFED it is pertinent to mention that the
issue of 'procurement' was discussed
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal NO. 2635 of 2025 (Arising out of
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SLP © No.30405/2024] titled "State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Pratyush Rawat &
Ors."
wherein
the
State/Department
challenged the order dated 11.11.2024 of
the Hon'ble High Court in WPIL 21609 of
2021 (connected with PIL No. 960 of 2024]

(iv) That all the essential points
regarding the validity of procuring semi
processed fortified ration from NAFED as
an interim measure were raised before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while granting leave in the
present matter and setting aside all other
interim directions passed in PIL NO. 21609
of 2024 held as follows:

"We make it clear that the
appellants shall be entitled to implement
the subject Scheme for supply of food
items maintaining the requisite quality, to
be used by lactating mothers and young
children, till final disposal of the Public
Interest Litigation."

h. That with respect to the 3rd
issue framed for consideration, i.e., "As to
whether the accountability of SHGs for
implementing the Scheme in absence of
they being a juristic person, can be fixed
upon the group collectively or severally
and the procedure in this behalf?", it is
essential to point out the following
regarding the aspect of a Legal Entity of
the AoP/SHG Micro Enterprises and the
manner their functioning is overseen as per
Government
of
India
letter
dated
13.01.2021 (paragraph 2) which relates to
the streamlining guidelines and the Gazette
of India dated 12.09.2022 (Rule 2022, Part
II, Section 3(i), paragraph 4)which say:

(i) Supply chain process in the
State must be made transparent for
functionaries
to
ensure
uninterrupted
supply to the last mile, which are compliant
with FSSAI registration licensing process
for entities involved in manufacture storage
and distribution of food to ensure food
safety and hygiene.

(ii) Entity has been defined as the
person, association of person (AoP), firm,
company or cooperative society but by
whatsoever name called or referred to.
Therefore not just entities but functionaries
which are compliant with FSSAI can also
be a part of the Supply Chain as per Rules,
2022.

(iii)
The
AoP/SHG
Micro
Enterprises has it own bylaws, signed a
notarize agreement, has PAN and GST
registration including Udhayam registration
under MSME and FSSAI License.

(iv) The CLF from where the
concerned AoP has emerged, are mandated
to
be
registered
under
Societies
Registration Act, 1860.

(v) To the support and provide
technical guidance to the AoP, a Nodal
Block
Mission
Manager
(BMM)
is
appointed at the block level and a Nodal
District Mission Manager (DMM) is
appointed at the district level.

(vi) Financial assistance made to
Self Help Groups (SHGs) as Revolving
Funds (RF) and Community Investment
Funds (CIF) under the National Rural
Livelihoods Mission (NRLM), now known
as Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana - National
Rural
Livelihoods
Mission
(DAY--
NRLM), are provided under the overall
policy and administrative guidelines issued
by the Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India. These funds are part
of the broader financial inclusion and
8 All. Shipra Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563
livelihood promotion strategy. UPSRLM
currently operates 204 THR units across 43
districts, reaching 1.08 crore beneficiaries
under 288 ICDS projects as of September
2024 which has been revised thereafter to
streamline the production.

(vii) These units are managed by
trained
women's
micro-enterprises,
ensuring
compliance
with
Good
Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good
Hygiene Practices (GHP). All THR recipes
strictly adhere to the National Food
Security Act (NFSA) 2013 norms and are
fortified with 12 micro-nutrients, vetted by
NIN, Hyderabad.

(viii) To oversee the full potential
functioning of THR plants at the district
level, an Executive Committee has been
constituted,
chaired
by
the
Chief
Development Officer (CDO), Its members
include the District Coordinator (National
Rural Livelihood Mission - NRLM),
District Program Officer (DPO), Deputy
Regional Medical Officer (Dy.RMO), SubDivisional
Officer
of
the
Electricity
Department, and District Mission Manager
(DMM).

(ix) This committee is primarily
responsible for resolving issues faced by
THR microenterprises, conducting regular
monitoring, quality checks, evaluating and
endorsing bills, payment of VGF, examine
the income and expenditure of THR units,
and ensuring uninterrupted raw material
availability for two shifts of 8 hours each
daily.

(x) Similarly, at the block level, a
committee has been formed under the
Chairmanship of the Block Development
Officer (BDO), with members including
the Assistant Development Officer (ADO),
Child
Development
Project
Officer
(CDPO), Junior Engineer of the Electricity
Department,
Block
Mission
Manager
(BMM), and the President and Treasurer of
the Association of Persons (AoP). Both
Committees are mandated to meet regularly
and review the receipt and expenses of the
THR plant fortnightly, payment of VGF,
conduct plant visits for monitoring and
quality checks, and ensure optimal plant
efficiency.

i. The Food Security Act 2013
has provisions for constituting a State Food
Commission that will give advice to the
State
Government,
their
agencies,
autonomous bodies as well as nongovernment
organizations
involved
in
delivery of relevant services for the
effective implementation of food and
nutrition
related
schemes,
to
enable
individuals
to
fully
access
their
entitlements specified in this Act. This
clearly reflects that these non-government
organizations and SHGs are entitled for
providing nutritional services whether it be
supply or distribution.

j. The data presented by the
Petitioner with respect to the hot cooked
meal, fed on Poshan Tracker was of
January 2025 is not factually correct. Hot
cooked meals are given to the children (age
3 yrs-6 yrs) under SNP Scheme of ICDS
who come to Anganwadi centers for preschool
education.
The
district
administration
decided
to
close
the
Anganwadi centers from mid-December,
2024 to mid-January 2025 due to the
extreme cold. This was the main reason as
to why the data on Pohan Tracker for those
specific days represents temporary data and
cannot be the basis of evaluate the proper
functioning of the Hot cooked meal
Scheme.
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

k. The data validation is being
carried out on Poshan Tracker during
SAMBHA Abhiyaan (State Innovation)
from July 2025 to September 2025 and
before 1st April 2025, it was not mandated
by the Government of India to feed the data
only on the Poshan Tracker, instead AWWs
used to maintain the data manually in
registers. Thus, it is requested before this
Hon'ble Court to take into account the data
maintained on the registers by AWWs and
not base their opinion/analysis solely on the
data on Poshan tracker as it would fail to
provide a complete picture.

l. In conclusion, it is submitted
that all the documents and grounds
regarding the validity of the SHGs, the
manner in which they are utilized, the
manner of scrutiny, the functioning of the
THR Units, the suitability of the Dry
Ration in areas where THR is not available
and all the accompanying grounds have
already been discussed before the Hon'ble
High
Court.
The
aforementioned
grounds/points are highlights which cover
majority of the issues which the Hon'ble
High Court has framed to be considered.

m. That the Department/State is
in process of implementing the new SNP
Regime and the State is Duty Bound to
properly implement the Scheme and is
actively making measures for the same."

(23) The opposite party No.4-Uttar
Pradesh State Rural Livelihood Mission has
also filed written submissions inter alia
stating that it is a proxy PIL and it is liable
to be rejected outrightly for this reason
alone. In the written submissions, the
opposite party No.4 has placed reliance on
the report dated 12.12.2024 submitted by
the Defence Food Research Laboratory,
Mysore which mentions that the current
THR plants are operating and functioning
efficiently. It has been stated that the report
contains
some
corrective
suggestions
particularly regarding the storage and
hygiene and all corrective measures have
been taken by the opposite party No.4. It is
strange that on the one hand the opposite
party No.4 has joined hands with the State
of U.P. in opposing the constitution of the
Committee and is objecting against the
report submitted by the Committee and at
the same time it is relying upon the report
submitted by the Committee.

(24) In reply to the first question
framed by this Court in the order dated
07.07.2025, the opposite party No.4 in light
of the relevant guidelines, Rules and
Regulations made an attempt to explain
that all the 204 processing units do
maintain
cashbooks,
ledgers,
stock
registers, invoice files, Chart of Accounts
(CoA) files and they record all transactions.
The opposite party NO.4 claims that the
THR plants were envisaged in pursuance of
the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its order passed in the
case of Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat v.
Mahila
Bachat
Gat
v.
State
of
Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No. 2336 of
2019 in compliance of which the SHGs
have been brought forth in the form of
Association of Persons (AoP) for supply of
the
captive
demand
of
ICDS's
supplementary nutrition in consonance with
the production capacities. It has further
been submitted that the recipes of the
existing THR were developed jointly by
World Food Programme (WFP) and Uttar
Pradesh Technical Support Unit (UPTSU)
and the same have been approved by the
Director, ICDS. The new recipes met the
global nutrition standards and also the
national nutrition norms. The recipe based
THR menu includes Atta, Besan, Halwa;
8 All. Shipra Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
565
Atta Besan Barfi Premix; Dalia, Moong
Dal Kitchdi and Energy Dense Halwa
which are provided in packets of different
quantities. The samples of THR are sent to
an
empanelled
National
Accreditation
Board
for
Testing
and
Calibration
Laboratories (NABL) accredited laboratory
for conducting quality test. Total 166
Ajeevika vehicles have been engaged
specially for transportation of THR packets
from the plant to the AWCs and local
vehicles are also engaged for this purpose.
The District Nutrition Committee reviews
and
monitors
Integrated
Child
Development Services (ICDS) and Poshan
Abhiyaan.

(25) It has been stated that THR units
are run by the Association of Person
(AoP)/SHG
Micro
Enterprises.
Each
AoP/SHG Micro Enterprise is supported by
300 SHGs of a Cluster Level Federation
(CLF) coming from 03 CLFs of the block.
Nearly 6 lakh SHG members are directly or
indirectly involved in THR programme, out
of which nearly 4000 executive members
are directly involved in operation and
management of THR plants and they are
paid an honorarium of Rs.8,000/- per
month. Each of the 300 SHGs contributed
Rs.30,000/- as equity fund for the purpose
of installation and operation of THR plants.
The
fact
remains
that
the
above
nomenclature or structure of service is
answerable to SRLM alone being its own
creation for business sharing.

(26) Regarding the second question
framed by this Court, it has been stated in
the written submissions of the opposite
party No.4 that since supply of dry ration
through NAFED is implemented and
monitored by the ICDS department, this
question does not concern the opposite
party No.4.

(27) In reply to the third question, it
has been submitted that AOP/SHG Micro
Enterprises have their own bye-laws under
the Societies Registration Act, therefore,
the AoP is a juristic person.