1 / 4 2025:CGHC:38338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4086 of 2025 Tulsi Women Self Help Group Balrampur Through Secretary, R/o House No. 98, Kumharpara, Balrampur, P.S. And Tahsil - Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of Food And Civil Supply, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6 - Chanchal Women Self Help Group Through President Smt. Eti Devi W/o Shri Dukhharan Mishra, Aged About 32 Years, President Of Chanchal Women Self Help Group, R/o Ward No. 1, Nagarpalika Parishad - Balrampur, Block - Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek K. Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA For Caveator : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/08/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.08 18:17:21 +0530 2 / 4 1. The instant petition has been filed challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 16/07/2025 passed by the Collector, Balrampur in Case No.2025052701200001/B-121 in compliance of the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Balrampur i.e. Respondent No.3. 2. The brief facts of the case are that earlier Respondent No.6 herein filed a writ petition which came to be registered as WPC No.4197 of 2024 against the order dated 26/06/2024 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj whereby the work assigned to the petitioner therein i.e. Respondent No.6 for supplying the mid-day meal to Swami Atmanand Upgrade (English Medium) Higher Secondary School, Balrampur was canceled. Thereafter, on 10/07/2024, the SDO allotted the work of supply of mid-day meal in the said School to the petitioner self help group. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 14/01/2025 disposed of the WPC No.4197 of 2024 and observed thus in para 6:- 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26/06/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3/ Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balrampur is hereby quashed. However, a liberty is reserved for the State to pass necessary order in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if so desired. 3. Thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the SDO passed the order dated 13/02/2025 and maintained the order of cancellation of the work of supply of mid day meal for the 3 / 4 Respondent No.6 Self Help Group. The Respondent No.6 challenged by the said order dated 13/02/2025 in WPC No.1929 of 2025 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 22/04/2025 with the following observations:- 3. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter that the matter is required to be considered by the Collector, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to approach before the concerned Collector while raising their grievance. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will approach before the Collector within 10 days. In turn, the Collector is directed to consider and decide the matter within 30 days from the date of approaching by the petitioner. 4. The Collector in compliance of the order passed by this Court in WPC No.1929 of 2025 passed the order dated 16/07/2025 whereby set aside the cancellation order of supply of mid day meal of Respondent No.6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the instant petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Respondent No.6 did not make the petitioner a necessary part in the case before the Collector Balrampur and also the Collector did not send any notice to the petitioner group and passed the order behind the back of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that there was no need to make party or send notice to the petitioner as this Court has not directed the State to send notice to 4 / 4 the petitioner or directed the Respondent No.6 to make the petitioner party. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of the order dated 10/07/2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) would show that the petitioner was given the work of supply of mid day meal on temporary basis until further orders. Moreover, this Court has not directed the State authorities to give notice or make party to the petitioner, therefore, there was no need to hear the petitioner. In view of this no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu