JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The petitioners are the Headmistresses of two educational institutions in Thiruvananthapuram District. Admittedly, the petitioners were providing mid-day meals to the students who have opted for the same in their respective schools. On the basis of an inspection conducted on 20.06.2017 and on 21.06.2017, a report at Ext.P9 has been prepared, alleging that as against the number of students who have opted for the mid-day meal programme, the respective petitioners have been providing mid- day meals only to a lesser number of students. On that basis, the difference amount allegedly availed by the petitioners were directed to be recouped from them. The afore proceedings were challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17635 of 2021. By Ext.P17 judgment dated 12.01.2022, this Court disposed of the afore writ petition as under; “6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books and of the view that there is force and merit in the submission of the counsel representing the petitioners as it is a blatant case of travesty of justice whereby the liability has been imposed upon the petitioners without affording any opportunity of hearing or submission of any document against the petitioners which could have been reverted or controverted. Though the petitioners attempted to avail the remedy but that also resulted into dismissal. Authority at the helm of affairs were legitimately expected to see whether any such illegality was writ large or not and unnecessarily have to incur the cost of the litigation in approaching this Court. Be that as it may. The orders aforementioned dated 13.06.2018 are quashed. Writ petitions are allowed. However this will not preclude the 3 rd and 4 th respondents to take a call on the suspicion or apprehension of the misusing of the noon meal scheme in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing and conducting an enquiry by putting documents to the petitioners. Petitioners are at liberty to place on record any material in support of this reply. Petitioners are at liberty to place on record any material in support of this reply. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.” Thus, it was found by this Court categorically that the proceedings have been finalised against the petitioners without serving the details of the documents relied on by the respondents, however, granting the respondents therein to proceed, in accordance with law, after granting the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and also after conducting an enquiry by offering the documents relied on by the respondents to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that, in continuation of the directions issued by this Court, the hearing notice at Ext.P18 alone has been issued to the petitioners directing them to appear for a hearing, without serving the documents relied on by the respondents. The petitioners further state that though they submitted Ext.P19 hearing note, with reference to the available documents, without carrying out a proper enquiry as directed, the impugned proceedings at Ext.P27 has been issued. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P27 issued as above that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition. 2. Heard Sri.Harish Gopinath, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader. 3. On a perusal of the proceedings at Ext.P27, this Court notices that the afore proceedings has been issued, not in pursuance to the detailed procedure laid down in Ext.P17 judgment. It is also noticed that the petitioners were only served with Ext.P1 hearing notice, and the documents which were relied on while issuing the original proceedings were not served on the petitioners, in spite of the specific directions in that regard. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings at Ext.P27 was not in tune with the directions issued in Ext.P17 judgment of this Court. 4. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P27. There will be a direction to the 3 rd respondent herein to pass fresh orders in tune with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P17 judgment, if any steps against the petitioners are proposed.