CEO District Panchayat is the exclusive authority competent to adjudicate complaints against Mid-Day Meal Self-Help Groups.

The Petitioner, a Self-Help Group (SHG) responsible for distributing Mid-Day Meals at a Government Middle School, challenged an order dated 29.08.2025 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) (Revenue) removing them from the program

The Petitioner alleged the order was arbitrary and violated natural justice as they were not granted a meaningful hearing

Furthermore, the Petitioner contended that the allegations of irregularities pertained to a Government Primary School operated by a different SHG, not the Middle School under the Petitioner's purview

The State argued the order was based on inspection reports highlighting poor hygiene and non-compliance with the prescribed menu

1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) possesses the jurisdiction to pass a final order of removal against a Self-Help Group under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme framework

2. Whether the impugned order was vitiated by procedural irregularities and a failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice

The Court primarily applied Clause 9 of the Government Circular dated 05.08.2020, which designates the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), District Panchayat, as the nodal authority at the district level empowered to render final decisions on complaints following an inquiry

It further relied on the New Guidelines 2017 and the Circular dated 10.01.2012, which establish a two-tier process: a three-member sub-divisional committee (chaired by the SDO) conducts the fact-finding inquiry, while the CEO, District Panchayat, acts as the final adjudicating authority

These provisions are read in conjunction with the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the Madhya Pradesh Food Security Rules, 2017

The Court found that the SDO (Revenue) bypassed the mandatory administrative framework by assuming the role of the final adjudicating authority

Under Clause 9 of the 2020 Circular, the SDO’s role is limited to chairing the sub-divisional fact-finding committee, whereas the power to pass a final order resides exclusively with the CEO, District Panchayat

The Court observed that this jurisdictional error struck "at the root" of the order's validity

Additionally, the Court noted that the inquiry was flawed and lacked specificity, as it failed to distinguish between the Petitioner’s operations at the Middle School and unrelated irregularities at a Primary School

This lack of factual clarity evidenced a non-application of mind and a violation of procedural fairness

The Court held that the order was unsustainable due to lack of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity, and violation of the principles of natural justice

The matter was remanded to the CEO, District Panchayat, to conduct a fresh, fair, and independent inquiry in accordance with the 2017 Guidelines and 2020 Circular

The CEO was directed to pass a reasoned order within six weeks

Crucially, the Court ordered that status quo be maintained regarding the Petitioner’s functioning and the appointment of any fresh agency until the CEO renders a final decision