Cancellation of contract without notice or mandatory inquiry violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a Self Help Group (SHG), challenged the order dated 24.10.2017 passed by Respondent No. 3, which cancelled its contract for distributing mid-day meals at Government Primary School, Faridpur, and entrusted the work to the School Management Committee

A consequential order dated 03.03.2018 was also assailed

The petitioner alleged that the cancellation occurred without a show-cause notice, enquiry, or hearing, violating the governing mid-day meal policy

Conversely, the State maintained that the action followed six inspections between 2012 and 2017, which consistently revealed sub-standard food quality

On 02.04.2018, the High Court stayed the impugned orders, and this interim protection remained in force for over eight years

1. Whether the impugned cancellation orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory enquiry procedures prescribed under the mid-day meal scheme policy

2. Whether the passage of time and the prolonged operation of an interim stay necessitated the quashing of the original orders to allow for a fresh legal process

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement of audi alteram partem, necessitating a show-cause notice and a fair hearing before the termination of a contract

Mid-Day Meal Scheme Policy, which imposes a statutory obligation on the competent committee to conduct an enquiry into the functioning of a self-help group upon receiving complaints

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to review the legality and propriety of administrative actions

While the State provided evidence of multiple inspections showing poor meal quality, the court noted the petitioner’s uncontroverted claim that no formal enquiry or hearing was conducted prior to the cancellation

The court observed that the respondents failed to discharge their statutory obligation to examine the petitioner's representation or conduct a proper enquiry as mandated by policy

Crucially, the court found that because an interim stay had been in place since 2018, the "efficacy" of the 2017 orders had been diluted over the intervening eight years

Balancing the serious nature of food quality concerns with the requirement for procedural fairness, the court determined that the existing orders could not stand but that the State must retain the right to take fresh action through proper legal channels

It held that while the original orders were procedurally deficient and diluted by time, the authorities must be granted liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law

The petition was disposed of with the direction that the competent authority may initiate a new process if required