Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court has set aside an interim order issued by the Allahabad High Court, which had restrained the State of Uttar Pradesh from acting on a finalized tender for the supply of food items to lactating mothers and young children. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's order did not provide any reasons for the injunction. The Apex Court ruled that the state government is entitled to proceed with the food supply scheme while ensuring the requisite quality until the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pending before the High Court is finally decided.

The matter originated from an interim order dated November 11, 2024, passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in PIL No. 21609 of 2021. The High Court issued the following direction: "Tender finalized, if any, in the meantime shall not be acted upon for the purpose of supply without seeking leave of the Court."

The order effectively restrained the State of Uttar Pradesh from proceeding with the implementation of the tender. The state, along with other appellants, challenged this order before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.

The PIL before the High Court concerns the procurement and distribution of food items meant for lactating mothers and young children. The petitioners raised concerns regarding the tendering process and alleged irregularities that could impact the quality of food provided under the scheme. The High Court, without providing any reasoning, granted an injunction restraining the state from proceeding with the tender’s execution.

The appellants, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court's order was abrupt and lacked justification. The appellants submitted that the injunction adversely affected the distribution of essential food supplies to vulnerable sections of the population.

The Supreme Court, in an order dated December 19, 2024, stayed the operation of the High Court’s directive. It observed that the High Court had not provided any reasoning for granting an injunction. The Supreme Court further noted that preventing the supply of food items under the scheme could be counterproductive to its objectives.

The Supreme Court examined the orders issued by the Allahabad High Court and took note of subsequent developments in the matter.

In its December 19, 2024 order, the Supreme Court stated:

"No reason has been assigned as to why the High Court considered it necessary to grant an injunction. Restraining supply of food items to be used by lactating mothers and young children ought not be stalled without reason although it cannot be gainsaid that it is for the petitioners to ensure the quality of the food items; else, the entire process becomes counterproductive to the Scheme that has been framed by the Centre."

The Supreme Court further recorded that, based on the absence of any stated reasons in the High Court’s order, it stayed the operation of paragraph 5 of the impugned order dated November 11, 2024. The Court also directed that any action taken by the respondent authorities shall abide by the result of the special leave petition.

Despite the Supreme Court's stay order, the Allahabad High Court issued another order on December 20, 2024. In this order, the High Court modified its previous directive, stating:

"Having regard to the order passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court and the prayer made in the application seeking modification of our order dated 11.11.2024, we modify the order passed by this court to the extent that the supplies for the third and fourth quarters of the year 2024-25 shall be acted upon by the State as per the procedure in vogue till the matter is finally decided by this Court in the light of the reports called for and the affidavits required to be filed by the State. The order dated 11.11.2024 shall stand accordingly modified."

The Supreme Court, in its final order dated February 17, 2025, expressed concerns over the High Court’s approach following the stay order. The Supreme Court noted:

"We are surprised at what the High Court did after the order dated 19th December, 2024 was passed by this Court. Despite realizing that it had proceeded to grant an injunction, thereby prohibiting supply of food items for lactating mothers and children, without assigning a single reason (it was incorrect for the High Court to suggest that detailed reasons were not assigned) and despite being fully aware of operation of the order dated 11th November, 2024 having been stayed by the notice issuing order dated 19th December, 2024, the High Court modified its earlier order of 11th November, 2024 on a purported consideration of a pending application for modification and made further directions for compliance by the State, which we have noted above, completely overlooking the other part of the order 19th December, 2024 to the effect that any action taken by the appellants would abide by the result of the special leave petition."

The Supreme Court further recorded:

"Having regard to the contents of the order dated 19th December, 2024, which were clear and intelligible, we have failed to comprehend as to how the High Court could assume jurisdiction to modify the self-same order of 11th November, 2024 citing pendency of an application for modification. In the light of the order of stay and the further order of the actions of the appellants to abide by the result of the special leave petition (and not the pending Public Interest Litigation), the High Court was not at all justified in what it did."

The Supreme Court also observed: "In our view, the learned Additional Solicitor General is right in her contention that the High Court has proceeded in a manner bordering on an attempt to overreach this Court. The course of action adopted by the High Court, we are afraid, was certainly neither warranted nor desirable on facts and in the circumstances."

After examining the developments, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and nullified all interim directions issued by the High Court in the PIL.

The Supreme Court directed:

"The impugned interim order (contained in paragraph 5) being wholly unreasoned and having been abruptly passed more than three years after institution of the Public Interest Litigation, the same is liable to be and is, accordingly, set aside. All other interim directions passed in the Public Interest Litigation stand set aside. 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."

The Court further recorded that since the PIL had been heard and judgment was reserved, the High Court must now decide the matter in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and disposed of all pending applications.

Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Pratyush Rawat & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2635/2025 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30405/2024]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan

[Read/Download order]