MP HC Upholds Taking School Meal Distribution From Self-Help Group After Inquiry Found Menu Violations

In brief

The question

1. Whether the order taking over the appellant’s mid-day meal distribution work was made in breach of natural justice or by an incompetent authority.

The court held

The Court held that the Single Judge had correctly declined to interfere and that the appellant had shown no ground for appellate intervention.

It also directed

The writ appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The appellant self-help group had distributed mid-day meals since 2017.

¶ 1–3, 6

Following villagers’ complaints that meals did not conform to the prescribed menu, an enquiry was conducted and children’s statements were recorded.

¶ 1–3, 6

The enquiry found the allegations substantiated, and a show-cause notice was served on the appellant.

¶ 1–3, 6

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri referred the matter to the Block Level Committee, which directed that the appellant’s work be taken over.

¶ 1–3, 6

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, then issued the consequential order dated 08.07.2024.

¶ 1–3, 6

The appellant challenged that order, alleging that it had not received the complaint or an opportunity to be heard and that the order was made by an incompetent authority.

¶ 1–3, 6

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, and the appellant appealed.

¶ 1–3, 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the order taking over the appellant’s mid-day meal distribution work was made in breach of natural justice or by an incompetent authority.

¶ 2–3, 6

ii.2. Whether the circumstances disclosed illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting appellate interference with the Single Judge’s refusal to intervene.

¶ 6–8

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles stated by the Division Bench in Neha Swa-sahayata Samooh, Datia v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.A. No. 1836/2019, decided on 21.01.2020: disputes about irregularities in a self-help group’s mid-day meal distribution are generally factual, and the relationship between the authorities and the group is contractual; courts should ordinarily avoid interference where doing so may adversely affect the health and lives of children who are not before the Court.

¶ 6

The Court also applied the principle that extraordinary writ or appellate intervention requires a demonstrated patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

¶ 7–8

04Reasoning

The Court found that the record did not support the appellant’s claim that it had been denied a hearing: an enquiry followed the complaints, a show-cause notice was served, and the matter was considered by the competent authority and the Block Level Committee.

¶ 6

The Janpad Panchayat Chief Executive Officer’s order was consequential; the decision to take over the work had been made through the preceding process.

¶ 6

Given the factual nature of the alleged menu irregularities, the contractual relationship, and the importance of protecting children receiving meals, the Court found no basis to disturb the Single Judge’s decision.

¶ 6

It further held that no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error had been established.

¶ 7