Preference to Self-Help Groups of Women Living Below Poverty Line Ousts Claim for Natural Justice.

The petitioner, Ajay Tiwari, challenged the order dated 06.04.2015 [Annexure P-1] whereby the work of Mid Day Meal distribution was assigned to respondent Nos. 7 & 8.

The petitioner further challenged the order dated 21.07.2015 [Annexure P-2] passed by the Collector, Sidhi, which dismissed his appeal.

The petitioner claimed he had been operating in the village for a long period without complaints and was discontinued without an opportunity of hearing.

The State countered that the allocation followed government guidelines prioritizing women’s self-help groups (Samuh) living below the poverty line (BPL) and that the petitioner was present during the decision-making resolution on 31.03.2015.

1. Whether the assignment of Mid Day Meal distribution to respondent Nos. 7 & 8 was legally valid under the prevailing government guidelines.

2. Whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The court applied the State Government Guidelines dated 13.09.2007 regarding the selection of agencies for Mid Day Meal distribution.

Clause 2.1.1 of these guidelines mandates that preference ("Prathmikta") must be given to women’s self-help groups consisting of members living below the poverty line (BPL).

The guidelines also emphasize selecting local groups that have completed at least six months of operation and prioritize groups whose members' children are enrolled in the target primary schools.

The Court examined the record and found that the selection of respondent Nos. 7 & 8 was strictly in accordance with Clause 2.1.1 of the 2007 guidelines, as they fell within the priority category of BPL women’s groups.

Regarding the petitioner's claim of lack of hearing, the Court noted that the resolution dated 31.03.2015 [Annexure R-2] proved the petitioner's representatives were present during the decision-making process.

Consequently, the Court determined that the principles of natural justice were satisfied and the State had followed the prescribed procedure for the allotment of work.

Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits.