Gaushala management termination must follow prescribed policy and natural justice before competent authority.

The petitioner-Society was entrusted with the management and operation of a Gaushala situated at Gram Panchayat Mada pursuant to a Gram Panchayat resolution dated 14 February 2025 and an agreement dated 6 May 2025 for a period of two years under the State Gaushala Scheme.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 16 February 2026 issued by the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch/Secretary cancelling the arrangement and sought restoration of its management for the remaining contractual period.

The petitioner contended that Clauses 31 and 32 of the prescribed agreement required notice and consideration by the competent Sub-Divisional/District-level authorities before removal of the managing agency, and that the Sarpanch/Secretary lacked authority to unilaterally terminate the arrangement.

The respondents justified the termination on the basis of alleged irregularities, financial deficiencies, inadequate maintenance, and non-compliance with the M.P. Gaushala Act, 1953, the Government scheme, and relevant circulars.

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner-Society’s Gaushala management arrangement was undertaken by the competent authority and in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the applicable Gaushala policy and Clauses 31 and 32 of the agreement?

Whether the impugned order was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice, including failure to provide due notice and an effective opportunity of hearing?

Whether the dispute concerning the alleged irregularities and the petitioner’s defence required fresh consideration by the competent authority?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of due notice and an effective opportunity of hearing before taking an adverse administrative decision.

The Court also treated the applicable State Gaushala policy, Government circulars, and Clauses 31 and 32 of the prescribed agreement as governing the authority and procedure for removal of the managing agency, including consideration by the competent Sub-Divisional/District-level authority.

The M.P. Gaushala Act, 1953 and the Government scheme were relevant to the respondents’ allegations concerning standards of Gaushala management, though the Court did not finally determine the merits of those allegations.

The Court found that the controversy turned on whether the termination had been effected in conformity with the procedure prescribed by the Gaushala policy and whether the competent authority had properly considered both the alleged deficiencies and the petitioner’s defence.

Since the petitioner disputed the Sarpanch/Secretary’s authority and asserted that Clauses 31 and 32 required a different decision-making process, while the respondents relied on alleged irregularities and prior communications, the Court considered that the rival factual and legal claims required examination by the competent authority.

Without expressing any view on the merits, the Court held that the interests of justice required reconsideration after due notice, a full opportunity of hearing, and adherence to the prescribed policy procedure.

The matter was remitted to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri, for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the applicable Gaushala policy.

The competent authority was directed to issue notice to the petitioner-Society and concerned authorities, permit them to submit relevant documents and arguments, consider the allegations of irregularities and the petitioner’s objections regarding authority and procedure, and pass an independent, reasoned and speaking order within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.