1 2025:CGHC:46552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4816 of 2025 1 - Luxami Women Self Help Group - Samari Through President Smt. Sobhawati Yadav W/o Mahendra Yadav, Aged About 35 Years, President Of Akriti Women Self Help Group Samari, R/o Village Samari, Block Kushami, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Kushami, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri A.N.Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy.GA SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.13 13:13:02 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/09/2025 By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4/Block Education Officer, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj by which the work assigned to the petitioner for supplying mid-day meal to Govt. Middle School -Samari and Govt. Primary School -Samari, has been stopped without assigning any reason as to what irregularity has been committed by the petitioner group and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. He submits that the order has been passed by the respondent No.4 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was only granted one day’s time to file reply which clearly shows that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.4 in an arbitrary manner without following the principle of natural justice. He submits that the respondent NO.4 is not competent authority to cancel the allotment order to the petitioner and it is the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) who has to pass the order as per policy dated 07.08.2012. Lastly, he submits that if the petitioner has to be removed or cancelled from the work awarded then specific reason has to be assigned and the said non-speaking order has been passed without communicating it to 3 the concerned head master. 3. Counsel for the respondent/State per contra supports the impugned order and submits that the show cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner but the petitioner failed to file reply within time. It is submitted that the competent authority has the power to cancel the allotment if irregularities are found in execution of Mid-day Meal scheme and there is no illegality in the order impugned. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and on perusal of the records, it is found that the order impugned dated 30.08.2025 suffers from legal infirmities. Firstly, the order is on-speaking as it does not disclose the nature of irregularities on the grounds on which the cancellation was founded. Secondly, the respondent NO.4 is not vested with the jurisdiction to cancel the allotment. Under the policy dated 07.08.2021, the competent authority to take such action is the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). 5. It is well settled that an order passed without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 is held to be unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. However, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), being the competent authority under the policy, to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that in the event such proceedings are initiated, the petitioner shall be afforded due and reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order. 4 7. It is further directed that during subsistence of the allotment, the petitioner shall scrupulously adhere to the mandate of the scheme and ensure that the Mid-day-Meal is supplied to the school children in a hygienic manner and in the prescribed quantity. Any deviation, deficiency or lapse in maintaining the required standard shall entitle the competent authority to forthwith initiate appropriate proceedings and take consequential action against the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge