1 2025:CGHC:53692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5430 of 2025 1. Vidhi Women Self Help Group Lodha Through President Smt. Pushpa Singh W/o Mankumar Singh Aged About 33 Years President Of Vidhi Women Self Help Group Lodha R/o Village Lodha Block Ramchandrapur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector Balrmapur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (CG) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer Ramchandrapur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5. President of Ambe Women Self Help Group Lodha Block Ramchandrapur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner :Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 4 :Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer For respondent No.5 :Mr. Navneet Yadav, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. The, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of impugned order dated 1.10.2025 Annexure P-1 issued by respondent No.3. 10.2.The, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to called the entire record in this case. 10.3.Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a self-help group of women and does the work of supplying mid-day meal to government schools. By allotment order dated 22.4.2022, Annexure P-3, petitioner group has been allotted work of supplying mid-day meal to the students of Government Primary School Lodha, Block Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. There was some complaint against petitioner regarding supply of mid-day meal to the school. However, vide order dated 1.10.2025, Annexure P-1, respondent No.3, without issuing notice to petitioner and without affording opportunity of hearing, discontinued the petitioner group from supplying mid-day meal. He further contended that the State Government has issued Guidelines dated 7.8.2012 for managing affairs of mid-day meal and appointment of group/committee. As per Clause 2 of the 3 Circular, if any complaint is received with regard to irregularities committed by any committee or self-help group in supplying mid-day meal, then an inquiry on the complaint is to be conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter appropriate order is to be passed. No such inquiry is conducted by respondent No.3 and only on the basis of complaint received, the order impugned has been passed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would submit that as per information gathered by him telephonically, show-cause notices dated 25.7.2025 & 14.8.2025 were issued, however, petitioner refused to accept notices and only thereafter respondent No.3-Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to pass the order, Annexure P-1. He further submits that though reply to writ petition is not filed, he received copy of endorsement regarding refusal of notice by petitioner made by the Coordinator, Cluster Centre Lodha on all three show-cause notices issued to petitioner. He places the same before this Court for perusal. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that submission of learned counsel for petitioner that no show- cause notice was issued is not correct. Show-cause notices were issued, copies of which are placed on record along with application for taking document on record as Annexure D-5 collectively. Petitioner failed to submit explanation to show- 4 cause notice and only thereafter order, Annexure P-1, is passed. There is no irregularity committed by respondent No.3 in passing the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available in writ petition. 6. Perusal of Clause-2 of Circular dated 7.8.2012 issued by the Department of School Education, would show that the Sub- Divisional Officer (respondent No.3) is the authority competent to appoint the agency to supply mid-day meal and also to take action including discontinuation of agency, if any complaint is received against it. Clause-2 further says that after receipt of complaint, the Sub-Divisional Officer is required to conduct an inquiry and thereafter to take decision. 7. From the contents of Annexure P-1 it is not appearing that after receipt of complaint against petitioner although in the form of panchnama forwarded by the Head Master of Government Primary School Lodha, which is placed on record by respondent No.5 as Annexure D-4, any inquiry on the complaint is conducted. Had respondent No.3 conducted inquiry, petitioner would have also got an opportunity to explain their conduct or allegations as leveled against them. In absence of inquiry, as provided under the Circular dated 7.8.2012, petitioner is deprived of available right to defend the allegations. Further, submission of counsel for petitioner that 5 from the panchnama it is appearing that any of the member of petitioner group has not signed the panchnama and therefore it appears that it is prepared behind the back of petitioner. 8. Perusal of show-cause notices annexed as Annexure D-5 collectively by learned counsel for respondent No.5 would show that there is no endorsement of the Coordinator in these show-cause notices to the effect that petitioner refused to accept it. Endorsement of refusal to accept notice, which is placed for perusal of this Court by learned counsel for the State during course of hearing, is on a plain paper and not on the show-cause notices. Thus, submission of learned counsel for respective respondents that show-cause notice was issued and petitioner refused to accept it, is not acceptable and it is repelled. 9. In the above facts of the case and discussion made, it is appearing that the order, Annexure P-1, dated 1.10.2025 canceling the allotment of work to petitioner of supply of mid- day meal to students of Government Primary School Lodha, is passed by the respondent No.3 in violation of principles of natural justice i.e. without affording opportunity of hearing to meet out the allegations mentioned in show-cause notice, and therefore, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. 10. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 1.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.3 is set 6 aside. However, respondent No.3 will be at liberty to consider complaint in the form of panchnama, as submitted by persons named therein, in accordance with law keeping in mind the requirement under clauses of Circular dated 7.8.2012. 11. Certified copy as per rule. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-