1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 117 of 2014 Order Reserved on 14.11.2024 Order Delivered on 10.01.2025 1 - Sunainamahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Sunaina Women Self Help Group, Thorugh Its Secretary, Smt. Sheela Dewangan, Age 48 Yrs, W/o Shri Raju Dewangan, Tah And Ps Takhatpur,, Ps Takhatpur, Civil And Revenue Distt Bilaspur, Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Gramin, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer R Kota, Distt Bilasppur, Cg 4 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Takhatpur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg 5 - Kunti Mahila Swa-Sahayata Sammuh Throuth Its President Smt. Uttra Soni, W/o Shri K.D.Soni, R/o Ward No. 06, Nagar Panchayat Takhatpur, Po And Ps Takhatpur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For State :- Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call of entire records pertaining to passing of order dated 13.3.2013 by respondent no. 4 and of the impugned order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the respondent no. 2 exercising their power against settled principal of law. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition in favour of the petitioner's Women self held group by quashing the impugned order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the respondent no. 2 and further pass an appropriate order/direction to the respondents, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner Society namely Sunaina Mahila Swa Sahayta Sammuh, Takhatpur is registered at Sr. No. 12123 as a committee by the State Govt. The respondent No. 4 had passed order dated 22.4.2010, by which the petitioner Mahila Swa Sahayta Sammuh was appointed for looking over the management work of afternoon-meals (Madhyan Bhojan) from July -Session/2010 at Shaskiya Purva Madhyamik Kanya Shala (Govt. Middle Girls School) Takhatpur to work and manage as per the rate and menu-chart fixed by the State Government. Since July 2010 till 13.12.2013, the petitioner's Mahila Swa Sahayta Sammuh (Women self help group) was looking after the 3 management work for the preparation and supply of afternoon meals (Madhyan Bhojan) at Govt. Middle Girls School Takhatpur at most work honestly upto the satisfaction without any complaint from the Children and their parents. The respondent No. 5, for the purpose to get the appointment order for management and supply of afternoon meals (Madhyan Bhojan) for Govt. Middle Girls School Takhatpur, often tried to submit false complaint through Head Master of the above school. The respondent No. 4, beyond jurisdiction, initiated the enquiry against the petitioner's group and made the Enquiry Committee of three Members namely Ishwar Dewangan Ward Member, Surendra Koshale Ward Member and Sanat Kumar Masih Incharge of afternoon meals section of Nagar Panchayat Takhatpur to enquire about the complaint submitted against the petitioner's group. The respondent No. 4 sent a letter to the member of Enquiry Committee namely Ishwar Dewangan to submit the enquiry within 3 days after enquiry. The Enquiry Committee submitted enquiry report dated 01.01.2019 before the respondent No. 4 in which the Enquiry Committee has instructed the Head Master of the said school to give the exact number of the students to the petitioner's group so that it might prepare the sufficient afternoon meals for the students, thus the enquiry group found the complaint to be false. But all of a sudden, the respondent No. 4 C.M.O. Nagar Panchayat Takhatpur passed order dated 13.03.2013 by which it has cancelled the order dated 22.4.2010 and all the management work in respect with afternoon 4 meals at Govt. Middle Girls School, Takhatpur had been allotted to respondent No. 5, another group namely Kunti Mahila Swa Sahayta Sammuh vide its order dated 13.03.2013 with immediate steps without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 has applied the wrong and illegal procedure against the petitioner's group in the alleged enquiry and he himself has enquired about the complaint submitted against the petitioner's group which is beyond jurisdiction. The petitioner's group came to know about the wrong and illegal procedure applied by the respondent No. 4 during enquiry after obtaining the certified copy of the note sheets through application under the Right to Information, 2005. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2013 passed by the respondent No. 4 filed a WP(C) No. 993/2013 before this Hon'ble Court to make the order set-aside, this Hon'ble Court had given liberty to petitioner to file an appeal to the appropriate authority raising all the grievance raised in that writ petition vide its order dated 21.03.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 raising all the grievances before it, the petitioner also submitted the circular dated 7.08.2012 issued by the State Govt. to show that the respondent No. 4 has passed the order dated 13.03.2013 without jurisdiction, in the said circular at clause No. 1 (2), any complaint against any such management committee will be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) of the concerned division after 5 enquiry and the concern Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall pass the final order to change the previous institution and to finalize the new committee to work. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has been authorized for such enquiry for concerned area, but in the instant case this provision has not been followed by the respondent No. 4 and the order dated 13.03.2013 has been passed. The respondent No. 2 after hearing the case at stage motion stage stayed the order dated 13.03.2013 till final decision of the case vide its order dated 5.4.2013. The respondent No. 2 overlooked and ignored the alleged provisions and did not appreciate the documents submitted by the petitioner before it, and rejected the above appeal filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure P-1). Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2 is bad in law. He submits that the order dated 13.03.2013 passed by the respondent No. 4 is beyond jurisdiction and had not followed the provision mentioned at clause 1 (2) of the circular dated 07.08.2012 issued by the State Govt. in which the State Govt. has provided that any complaint against such management committee shall be enquired by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and it shall pass the final judgment against any guilty group after enquiry as per rule. The concerned authority will be authorized to change the previous institution and finalize the new committee to work. He submits that the respondent No. 2 has 6 also overlooked and ignored the above-mentioned provision of the circular dated 07.08.2012 and passed its order dated 13.12.2013. He further submits that Enquiry Committee of three Members has recommended to continue the management work of the petitioner's group and has instructed the concerned Head Master to cooperate the petitioner's group to prepare the afternoon meals for the students and the Enquiry Committee has instructed the Head Master to give the exact numbers of the student of the school to the petitioner's group so that the sufficient afternoon meals might be prepared. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 3 has not enquired the complaint by giving the opportunity of hearing to the parties and has not passed its final written order against the petitioner's group so the order dated 13.03.2013 passed by the respondent No. 4 is beyond jurisdiction and not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 13.03.2013 and 13.12.2013 are not sustainable, bad in law and deserves to be set-aside and accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that on 13/03/2013, the respondent no. 4 under the authority of the Sub Divisional Magistrate has issued two orders. Firstly, the order cancelling the allotment to the petitioner society for providing mid day meal and secondly, the order appointing respondent No. 5 Society to provide mid-day meal. However, the petitioner has only chosen to challenge his part of the order and the order of allotment to 7 respondent no. 5 Society has not been assailed by the petitioner before any appropriate forum. Hence, with the afflux of time, the same has attained finality. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record with due care and caution. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Addagada Raghavamma vs. Addagada Chenchamma reported in 1964 AIR 136 has held that when there is concurrent finding of facts, then in such situation, interference under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible. The relevant para of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “This Court has the power to review the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts in appropriate cases. But this Court ordinarily will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact except in exceptional cases, where the findings are such as "shocks the conscience of the Court or by disregard to the forms of legal process or some violation of some principles of natural justice or otherwise substantial and grave-, injustice has been done' . It is not possible nor advisable to define those circumstances. It must necessarily be left to the discretion of this Court having regard to the facts of a particular case. The present case is not one of those exceptional cases where a departure from the salutary practice adopted by this Court is justified.” 8 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and further considering the fact the petitioner has only challenged the order cancelling the allotment to the petitioner’s society for providing mid day-meal and has not challenged the order of allotment to respondent No. 5 Society before any appropriate forum. Hence, with the efflux of time, the same has attained its finality. As such, there is no any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the concerned respondent authorities and at this stage, no good ground has been shown for interference, as such, I am not inclined to exercise inherent power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha