Writ jurisdiction may be exercised to quash cancellation of contract if based on unproven, non-disclosed allegations.

The appellants, Smt. Arti Yadav and Smt. Butaiya Devi, were Presidents of Laxmi Swa Sahayata Samooh and Pragya Swa Sahayata Samooh respectively, Sukahar, Janpad Panchayat, Chitrangi, District Singrauli (M.P.).

Pursuant to State guidelines for the mid-day meal scheme, the Samoohs were awarded contracts for supply of mid-day meals in Government schools at Sukahar vide orders dated 03.10.2008 and 23.12.2017.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Panchayat, Singrauli, vide order dated 28.03.2023, cancelled both contracts and awarded the work to the Unified School Management Committee, Sukahar under the Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Nirman (PM POSHAN).

Subsequently, upon the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chitrangi (letter dated 16.06.2023), the CEO vide order dated 11.08.2023 awarded the contract to Jagwati Singh, President of Adarsh Swa Sahayata Samooh (Respondent No. 7); this order was challenged by way of amendment.

In reply, the respondents contended that an efficacious alternative remedy (revision before the Collector) existed, and that an enquiry committee constituted on 10.01.2022 had found serious irregularities in the appellants' meal distribution — lesser quantity relative to student strength and only one cook present.

1. Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of an alternative efficacious remedy (civil suit/revision), the relationship being contractual in nature, per Neha Swa-Sahayata Datia v. State of M.P.

2. Whether the order dated 28.03.2023 cancelling the appellants' contracts was sustainable when the impugned order itself recorded no allegations against the appellants, and all allegations of substandard meal supply surfaced for the first time in the respondents' reply.

3. Whether the order dated 11.08.2023 awarding the contract to Respondent No. 7 could be sustained despite subsisting interim orders in favour of the appellants in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal.

Where disputes arise out of a contract, and involve disputed questions of fact, the remedy lies in arbitration or a civil suit, where parties may lead evidence.

The Article 19 right of a Self-Help Group must yield to the children's Article 21 right to nutritional, hygienic mid-day meals (also drawing on Articles 39(f), 45, 47, the National Food Security Act, 2013, and PUCL v. UOI, (2007) 1 SCC 719).

An impugned order must rest on reasons and allegations disclosed within it, and cannot be sustained on post-hoc justifications introduced for the first time in a reply affidavit.

State action taken in breach of subsisting interim orders of the Court is liable to be quashed.

The Court accepted, in principle, that veracity of the enquiry findings against the appellants constituted a disputed question of fact ordinarily relegating the parties to a civil suit or arbitration, where the appellants could prove innocence by leading evidence on quantity and quality of food.

The impugned cancellation order dated 28.03.2023 contained no allegations against the petitioners whatsoever; the entire edifice of irregularities — the 10.01.2022 committee, spot inspection, and adverse enquiry report — was raised for the first time in the respondents' reply before the Court, and thus could not retroactively validate an unreasoned executive order.

Interim orders in favour of the appellants were in force both in the Writ Petition and in the Writ Appeal, and despite the same the contract was awarded to Respondent No. 7, rendering the award itself liable to be quashed.

The order dated 11.08.2023 awarding the contract to Jagwati Singh, President, Adarsh Swa Sahayata Samooh, is quashed.