Article 226 interference is unwarranted where disputed meal-scheme irregularities implicate children’s nutritional welfare.

The petitioner, a Self-Help Group, had been entrusted with the distribution of mid-day meals to school-going children.

Following a complaint dated 18 December 2023 alleging that meals were not being supplied according to the prescribed menu, a show-cause notice dated 17 January 2024 was issued.

An enquiry was conducted, during which statements of children were recorded and a certificate was obtained from the Head Master.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri, directed on 24 June 2024 that the matter be placed before the Block Level Committee.

The Committee thereafter directed withdrawal of the mid-day meal distribution work from the petitioner, and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Khaniyadhana, passed the consequential order dated 8 July 2024.

The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226, alleging violation of natural justice, non-supply of the complaint and enquiry material, denial of an effective hearing, and lack of competence of the Janpad Panchayat authority.

Whether the impugned order withdrawing the mid-day meal distribution work from the petitioner was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice, including failure to furnish the complaint and enquiry material and failure to provide an effective opportunity of hearing.

Whether the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, was competent to pass the consequential order under the policy dated 5 August 2020, or whether the matter was required to be decided exclusively by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat.

Whether the disputed factual questions concerning the alleged irregularities in the supply of mid-day meals could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Whether the petitioner’s asserted interest in continuing the work had to yield to the larger public interest in ensuring nutritious, fresh and hygienic meals for school-going children.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, while reiterating that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unsuitable for adjudicating disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence.

It applied the principles of natural justice in the context of administrative action having civil consequences, but noted that the respondents had asserted that a complaint, show-cause notice, enquiry and consideration by the competent authorities had preceded the decision.

The Court considered the State policy dated 5 August 2020 concerning the competent authority and procedure for mid-day meal arrangements.

It relied principally on the Division Bench decision in Neha Swa-Sahayata Samooth, Datia v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, W.A. No. 1836 of 2019, decided on 21 January 2020, which held that the relationship with a Self-Help Group is contractual, that allegations concerning irregularities ordinarily involve disputed questions of fact, and that the public interest in providing nutritious and hygienic mid-day meals to children is paramount.

This public interest is connected with the protection of children’s right to life and health under Article 21.

The Court held that the petitioner’s challenges concerning the truth of the allegations, reliability of the children’s statements, service of the show-cause notice and adequacy of the opportunity of hearing involved disputed factual matters that could not appropriately be examined through a writ petition.

The record indicated that the action had been preceded by a complaint, show-cause notice, enquiry, consideration of the enquiry report, examination by the competent authorities and deliberation at the Committee level.

Even the objection regarding the authority of the Janpad Panchayat could not justify interference because the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, had considered the enquiry report and directed that the matter be placed before the Committee, after which the Janpad Panchayat issued the consequential order.

Applying Neha Swa-Sahayata Samooth, the Court held that the petitioner’s contractual or personal interest in retaining the work had to yield to the paramount public interest in safeguarding the nutrition, health and welfare of school children.

Re-appreciation of the enquiry material or undertaking a roving factual investigation was therefore impermissible under Article 226.

It found no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference with the impugned action, and held that the disputed allegations and evidentiary material could not be re-examined in writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition was dismissed, and no direction was issued permitting the petitioner to resume distribution of mid-day meals.