2025:JHHC:31339-DB -1 of 6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3244 of 2020 The Vegetable Growers Cooperative Society Ltd. through its Secretary. Dilip Oraon, aged about 45 years, having its Office at Budhu Lane, Koire Muhalla, P.O. Lohardaga P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga (Jharkhand). …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Jharkhand State Adivasi Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. through its Managing Director, having its Office at 4th Floor, Pashupalan Building. Singh More, Hesag, P.O. & P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operatives, having its office at Nepal House, PO & PS- Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at 4th Floor, Pashupalan Building, Singh More, Hesag, P.O. & P.S.- Hatia, District - Ranchi 5. In Charge Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, South Chhotangapur Division, Ranchi cum Administrator The Jharkhand State Adivasi Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd having its Office at Gungoo Toli, Bahu Bazar. P.O.- Bahu Bazar, P.S -Chutia, District – Ranchi. …. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate For the State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For the Resp. No.2: Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 08.10.2025 Pronounced on: 10.10.2025 Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. 1. Heard. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- (i) For issuance of a writ commanding upon the respondents to produce the records of the decision taken by the respondents in the 38th meeting of the Board of Directors held on 11.08.2020 on the basis of which an "Expression of 2025:JHHC:31339-DB -2 of 6- Interest" has been published in the local dailies vide letter no. 356/ VEGFED Ranchi dated 25.09.2020 (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing letter no. 356/ VEGFED Ranchi dated 25.09.2020 whereby and where under application have been invited for running of the five retail outlets in the city of Ranchi. AND (iii) During pendency of this application further be pleased to restrain the respondents to proceed in finalization of the tender matter in question and publishing the result of the final bid.” 3. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society of vegetable growers having been registered under the Bihar (Jharkhand) Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. The petitioner after fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria, made an application before respondent No.2-Jharkhand State Adivasi Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., Ranchi for allotment of five retail outlets in the year 2014 known as ‘Vegfresh’, situated at different localities of Ranchi township. 4. According to the petitioner, the retail outlets had been allotted for a period of 15 years on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- for each outlet. However, respondent No. 2 after expiry of five years, has issued a fresh notice inviting Expression of Interest on 25.09.2020 (Annexure-7) with regard to the said retail outlets which is highly illegal and arbitrary. 5. Hence, this writ petition. 6. The respondents have contested the petition and it is submitted that a lease agreement has duly been entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 10.04.2014 for a period of five years with stipulation that the same can be renewed twice without issuing any tender as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It has 2025:JHHC:31339-DB -3 of 6- however, been mentioned in Clause-20 of the said agreement that after expiry of the lease period i.e. on 10.04.2019, if the lease is not renewed in the name of the petitioner (second party of the agreement) for another term, it would have to vacate the possession of the said retail outlets. Accordingly, since the said lease agreement was not renewed, the petitioner was supposed to vacate the said retail outlets and therefore, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice inviting Expression of Interest dated 25.09.2020. 7. This Court vide order dated 10.11.2020 permitted respondent No. 2 to continue with the process of settlement of the retail outlets in pursuance to the notice inviting Expression of Interest dated 25.09.2020 however, it was observed that the same shall not be finalised in favour of any person till further orders of this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 9. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the lease rent agreement dated 10th April, 2014 (Annexure-3) had admittedly been entered into pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting of 32nd Board (Annexure-1) pursuant to which the Managing Director of the respondent-Society vide its letter bearing No. 158 dated 11.03.2014 had informed the Secretary of the petitioner’s society that recommendation for allotment of retail outlets had been made in his favour for a period of 15 years and further that the rent would be revised after every five years. 10. 10. It is yet not in dispute that the petitioner on being declared the lowest bidder entered into the agreement on 10th April, 2014 and as per the lease agreement the allotment of five retail outlets was made in 2025:JHHC:31339-DB -4 of 6- favour of the petitioner on the condition that the rent would be revised after every five years which was in conformity with the decision taken in the 32nd meeting of the Board of Directors and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to have issued letter No. 356/Vegfed, Ranchi dated 25.09.2020 whereby and whereunder the application had been invited for running five retail outlets in the city of Ranchi which was in possession of the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would, however, argue that in terms of Clause 21 and 22 of the lease deed the respondent No. 2 is entitled to determine the lease agreement and cancel the lease in case of there being any breach of the terms and conditions of lease agreement and given the fact that the petitioner had failed to run five retail outlets efficiently and on several occasions the shops were found closed, therefore, the respondents were well within their right to cancel the lease and call for a fresh Expression of Interest. 12. However, this contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that this is not the reason set out in the impugned order. There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite in self sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that an authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition, it can be found in the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405 of which the following paragraph deserves extraction:- 2025:JHHC:31339-DB -5 of 6- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 13. In addition to the above, on a pointed query to the respondents as to whether there was any further decision taken after the 32nd meeting of the Board curtailing the term of lease from 15 years to 5 years, the counsel for the respondents candidly conceded that there was no such decision taken by the Board. Once that be so obviously, the decision taken by the Board is binding on the respondents themselves and could not have been modified and varied by any subsequent act of any individual officer till and so long the decision was not varied or modified etc. by the Board itself which is the apex decision making authority. 14. Having said so, we find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, allowed. Accordingly, letter No. 356/Vegfed, Ranchi dated 25.09.2020 whereby and whereunder applications have been invited for running of the five retail outlets in the city of Ranchi is ordered to be quashed and since the petitioner is now running only three retail outlets, 2025:JHHC:31339-DB -6 of 6- therefore, they are permitted to run them for the complete period of 15 years which would be subject to the terms of the other conditions contained in the lease agreement. Leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 15. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) October, 10th , 2025 N.A.F.R. VK