1 2025:CGHC:3603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 237 of 2019 1 - Minimata Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh Village - Chhitapar, Through Its President Manju Dhindore, W/o Rajkumar Dhindore, Aged About 40 Years, Village - Chhitapar, Tahsil Navagarh, Districtg Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil And Disrict Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Education Officer Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Neelam Jaiswani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to produce the complete record related with the case of the petitioner's Society for just and proper -2- decision of the case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondent to quash the order Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's society to run the Mid Day Meal program at respective centers or schools. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to place all the material for forming the basic to pass the order vide Annexure P/l and Annexure P/2 for kind perusal and appreciation of this Hon'ble Court. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to take appropriate action against the erring officer, who has passed the inspection order vide Annexure-P/1 without following due process of law and only with an oblique motive intention and object to cause damage to the reputation and functioning of the petitioner society. 10.6 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Ms. Jaiswani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Group was registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act, 1973 in the year 2011. She would further submit that the work order of supply of mid-day meals was granted to the petitioner group by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) in the year 2011 itself and it continued till the year 2018. She would contend that a show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Navagarh on 16.04.2018 to the effect that the petitioner was supplying mid-day meals to various 3 schools. She would further contend that a reply was filed wherein it was stated that most of the self-help groups are supplying mid-day meals to various schools and in the scheme, there is no such bar. She would state that vide order dated 10.01.2019, the Block Education Officer cancelled the work order of supply of mid-day meals at Government Primary School Samesar, Chherkapur pursuant to the order issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Navagarh. She would further state that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and there is no such provision in the scheme with regard to the supply of mid-day meals. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Kale, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Jaiswani. He would submit that a show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Navagarh on 16.04.2018 and three days were granted to file a reply and thereafter, a decision was taken. He would further submit that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Navagarh has not been challenged by the petitioner and thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. From a perusal of the interim order dated 30.04.2019 passed by this Court, it is apparent that the interim order was granted for a period of that academic session. In the present petition, the petitioner has not challenged the -4- order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Navagarh which is mentioned in the order dated 10.01.2019 issued by the Block Education Officer, Navagarh, District Bemetara. The petitioner has also not placed on record the scheme with regard to the supply of mid-day meals. 6. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the present petition appears to be misconceived. Though it is stated by Ms. Jaiswani that the petitioner is still supplying the mid-day meal to the schools but in this regard also, no document is placed on record. 7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Navagarh which is mentioned in the order dated 10.01.2019 before the appropriate authority within a period of 10 days from today. The petitioner would be at liberty to move an application for the grant of interim relief before such authority. The authority concerned is directed to decide the appeal so preferred by the petitioner preferably within a period of 45 days. For a period of 60 days, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue with the supply of mid-day meals to the schools, if it is continued. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha