Pending representation must be decided on its merits; impugned orders remain undisturbed.

The petitioner, a registered women’s self-help society, had been engaged in providing mid-day meals to students of Government Primary School, Bardih.

After the petitioner sought changes in the society’s membership, an enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Officer terminated the petitioner’s arrangement for providing mid-day meals and authorized the School Management Committee to appoint another agency in accordance with law.

The petitioner challenged the action before the Additional Collector, but the challenge was rejected by order dated 14 June 2023.

The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 30 June 2023 to the Principal Secretary, School Education Department. That representation was rejected by order dated 1 September 2023 on the ground that the matter did not concern the School Education Department.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner confined its prayer to a direction for expeditious consideration and disposal of the pending representation, without pressing the challenge to the impugned orders at that stage.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for expeditious disposal of its representation dated 30 June 2023 concerning its removal from the mid-day meal programme.

2. Whether the Court should set aside or adjudicate upon the validity of the orders dated 14 June 2023 and 1 September 2023 in the present proceedings.

The Court applied the general administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with law by passing an appropriate and reasoned order.

Since the petitioner confined its relief to consideration of the representation, the Court did not determine the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to continue providing mid-day meals, nor did it rely upon or interpret any specific statutory provision or precedent.

In view of the petitioner’s limited prayer and the State’s non-opposition, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the concerned authorities to decide the representation dated 30 June 2023 within a reasonable time and in accordance with law.

The Court expressly refrained from examining the merits of the petitioner’s grievance, including the legality of its termination and the authorization of another agency.

It further clarified that the representation must be decided independently and that the writ order would not influence the authority’s decision.

The Court did not set aside the orders dated 14 June 2023 or 1 September 2023, and left all merits open for consideration by the competent authority.