Children’s right to nutritious mid-day meals outweighs a Self-Help Group’s claim to continued entrustment.

The petitioner-Self Help Group had been entrusted with the distribution of mid-day meals at a school.

Following a complaint dated 29 January 2024 alleging that meals were not being supplied according to the prescribed menu, the authorities issued a show-cause notice dated 9 February 2024, conducted an enquiry, recorded statements of children, and obtained a certificate from the Head Master.

The petitioner alleged that the complaint was not supplied to it and that it was denied an effective opportunity of hearing.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri, directed that the matter be placed before the Block Level Committee, which decided to withdraw the work from the petitioner.

Consequently, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Khaniyadhana, passed the impugned order dated 8 July 2024 taking away the work of mid-day meal distribution.

Whether the withdrawal of the mid-day meal distribution work was vitiated by violation of natural justice because the complaint and enquiry material were not furnished to the petitioner and an effective opportunity of hearing was allegedly not provided.

Whether the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, was competent to pass the consequential order dated 8 July 2024 under the policy governing the mid-day meal scheme, or whether the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, was the competent authority.

Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate disputed questions concerning the correctness of the allegations, service of the show-cause notice, and reliability of the enquiry evidence.

Whether the petitioner’s interest in continuing the mid-day meal work should prevail over the public interest in securing nutritious, hygienic, and fresh meals for school-going children.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, observing that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unsuitable for determining disputed questions of fact or undertaking a reappraisal of evidentiary material.

It considered the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of notice and an effective opportunity to respond where administrative action has civil consequences.

The Court also considered the State policy dated 5 August 2020, under which the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, was identified as the competent authority, and the procedure involving consideration by the appropriate committee.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in Neha Swa-sahayata Samooth, Datia v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, W.A. No.1836/2019, decided on 21 January 2020, the Court held that disputes concerning withdrawal of mid-day meal work are substantially factual and contractual, and that the larger public interest in ensuring nutritious, fresh, and hygienic food for children, protected by the right to life and health under Article 21, outweighs the Self Help Group’s interest in continuing the assignment.

The Court held that the petitioner’s allegations regarding non-supply of the complaint, inadequate hearing, improper enquiry, and want of authority involved disputed factual and procedural matters.

The respondents had placed material showing that a complaint was received, a show-cause notice was issued, an enquiry was conducted, statements of children were recorded, the Head Master furnished a certificate, and the matter was considered by the competent authorities and the Committee.

Whether the petitioner actually received the notice, whether it refused service, and whether the enquiry material was reliable could not appropriately be determined through a limited writ proceeding without reappreciating evidence.

Further, even assuming a technical objection concerning the authority that issued the consequential order, the Court considered the nature of the mid-day meal scheme and applied the principle that the health and nutrition of children must receive primacy.

Following Neha Swa-sahayata Samooth, the Court declined to interfere where no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error was established.

It found no sufficient basis to interfere under Article 226 because the proceedings were preceded by a complaint, show-cause notice, enquiry, consideration by the competent authorities, and committee deliberation, while the petitioner’s challenges raised disputed questions of fact.

The Court also held that the public interest in protecting the health and nutrition of school-going children outweighed the petitioner’s interest in retaining the mid-day meal assignment.

The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit, and no direction was issued permitting the petitioner to resume the work.