Children’s right to nutritious mid-day meals outweighs a Self-Help Group’s interest in continuing the arrangement.

The petitioner, a Self-Help Group, had been entrusted with distributing mid-day meals to school children.

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 on 9 February 2024 and conducted an enquiry, including recording statements of children and obtaining a certificate from the Head Master.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri, considered the enquiry material and, by order dated 24 June 2024, directed that the matter be placed before the Block Level Committee.

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

The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226, alleging violation of natural justice, non-supply of the complaint, denial of an effective opportunity of hearing, reliance on material collected behind its back, and lack of competence of the Janpad Panchayat authority.

Whether the withdrawal of the mid-day meal distribution work from the petitioner was vitiated by breach of natural justice, including failure to furnish the complaint and denial of an effective opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Whether the impugned order dated 8 July 2024 was invalid because it was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, allegedly contrary to the policy vesting competence in the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, should re-appreciate disputed factual questions concerning the alleged irregularities in the supply of mid-day meals.

Whether the petitioner’s interest in continuing the mid-day meal work could prevail over the public interest in ensuring nutritious, fresh and hygienic food for school children.

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, holding that disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of complaints, statements, enquiry material and other evidence are ordinarily inappropriate for determination in writ proceedings.

It applied the principles of natural justice in the context of the State’s assertion that a complaint, show-cause notice, enquiry and consideration by the competent authorities had preceded the impugned action.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in Neha Swa-sahayata Samooth, Datia v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.A. No. 1836/2019, decided on 21 January 2020, which held that disputes concerning withdrawal of mid-day meal work from a Self-Help Group are substantially factual and contractual, and that the public interest in providing nutritious, fresh and hygienic meals to children, protected by the right to life and health under Article 21, is paramount over the Self-Help Group’s interest in continuing the work.

Even a technical objection regarding the competence of the authority must therefore be assessed in light of the larger public interest involved.

The Court noted that the respondents had produced material showing that the action followed a complaint, show-cause notice, enquiry, statements of children, the Head Master’s certificate, consideration by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, and deliberation by the competent Committee.

Whether the complaint was correct, whether the statements were reliable, whether the show-cause notice was properly served, and whether the petitioner had received an adequate opportunity to respond were factual matters requiring evaluation of evidence, which the Court could not undertake through a roving enquiry under Article 226.

The Court further held that the mid-day meal scheme directly concerns the health and welfare of children, and therefore the petitioner’s claimed interest in retaining the work had to yield to the public interest in ensuring safe and nutritious meals.

Applying Neha Swa-sahayata Samooth, the Court found no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting writ interference, notwithstanding the petitioner’s objections regarding natural justice and authority.

The disputed allegations and the petitioner’s challenge to the enquiry could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings, while the record disclosed that the authorities had followed the relevant procedure and acted in the larger interest of school-going children.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the impugned order withdrawing the mid-day meal distribution work from the petitioner was left undisturbed.