1 2025:CGHC:14254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5424 of 2022 Ujala Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Through President Shabana Ansari W/o Imamuddin Ansari, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Pump House Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhwan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Food Department Branch, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Division Education Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Principal, Swami Atmananad English School, Balco Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Ekta Swa Sahayata Samuh Through Its President Sector-3, Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.26 10:22:08 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.03.2025 1 Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Vikas Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and set aside the application dated 30.11.2022 issued by the respondent no. 5 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, the respondent no. 5 may kindly be punished for non compliance of the order dated 24.11.2022 and 25.11.2022, because inspite of the order of his superior the respondent no. 5 has arbitrary not permitted the petitioner to carried out the order dated 24.11.2022 and 25.11.2022 and restrain the petitioner for doing the distribution of midday meal to the student of Govt. Atmanand English School Balco District Kroba. 10.4 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 3 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any particular order, but the arbitrary action on the part of respondent No.5, i.e. Principal, Swami Atmanand Govt. English School Balco, District Korba by which inspite of the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by respondent No.3 Sub Divisional officer, (R) Korba as well as the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by respondent No.4, the Principal has not allowed the petitioner to provided midday meal to the students of Swami Atamarnand Govt. English school, Balco, District Korba and contrary to the aforesaid orders dated 24.11.2022 and 25.11.2022, without any order in favour of respondent No.6 made a prayer to continue respondent No.6, though respondent No.6 has already provided the midday meal to the Govt. Middle School Boys Balco, Parasbhata, District Korba. He further submits that respondent No.5 has acted contrary to the circular dated 07.08.2012 issued by the State Government which relates to providing the midday meal by way of the order of competent authority and in the aforesaid provision, no where given power to the Principal to avoid the order of Sub Divisional Officer and Block Division Education Officer. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that ther is no such order against the petitioner and the petitioner himself has requested to respondent No.5 to appoint some other society for running the midday meal. 4 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, prima facie, it appears that there is nothing against the petitioner and the petitioner is running the midday meal in accordance with law. The petitioner society may continue the midday meal Programme. However, if any complaint is made against the petitioner, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 7 With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- /- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh