Writ jurisdiction should not reassess disputed facts where children’s nutritional welfare is paramount.

The petitioner, a Self-Help Group, had been entrusted with distributing mid-day meals in certain government schools in District Shivpuri.

Following complaints alleging non-supply of meals according to the prescribed menu and deficiencies in food quality, the authorities issued a show-cause notice, conducted an enquiry, recorded statements of children, obtained a certificate from the Head Master, and considered the petitioner’s response.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri, directed that the matter be placed before the competent Committee, which resolved to withdraw the work from the petitioner.

Consequently, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Khaniyadhana, passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 entrusting the work elsewhere.

The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226, alleging violation of natural justice, non-supply of the complaint and enquiry material, denial of an effective hearing, and lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Janpad Panchayat authority.

The respondents maintained that the action followed the complaint, show-cause notice, enquiry, consideration by the competent authorities, and Committee decision under the policy dated 05.08.2020.

1. Whether the withdrawal of the mid-day meal distribution work was vitiated by violation of natural justice because the complaint and enquiry material were allegedly not supplied and the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 was without jurisdiction because it was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, instead of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, who was alleged to be the competent authority under the policy dated 05.08.2020.

3. Whether the disputed allegations concerning the quality and distribution of mid-day meals could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Whether, having regard to the public interest in providing nutritious, hygienic and fresh food to school-going children, the Court should interfere with the withdrawal of the petitioner’s work.

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review under Article 226, including the rule that disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence are ordinarily not adjudicated in writ proceedings.

It also applied the principles of natural justice in the context of administrative action having civil consequences, while examining whether the petitioner had been given a show-cause notice and an opportunity to respond.

The Court relied on the State Government policy dated 05.08.2020 concerning the competent authority and procedure for action relating to irregularities in mid-day meal distribution.

It further relied on Neha Swa-sahayata Samooh, Datia v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.A. No.1836/2019, decided on 21.01.2020, which held that disputes concerning withdrawal of mid-day meal work are generally factual and contractual, and that the public interest in ensuring nutritious, fresh and hygienic meals for children, linked to their right to life and health under Article 21, must prevail over the Self-Help Group’s interest in continuing the work.

The Court held that the petitioner’s challenges substantially depended on disputed facts—whether the meals complied with the prescribed menu, whether the statements of children were reliable, whether the show-cause notice was duly served, and whether the petitioner’s explanation was adequately considered.

Determining these matters would require a roving enquiry and appreciation of evidentiary material, which was inappropriate in Article 226 proceedings.

The record indicated that the action was preceded by complaints, a show-cause notice, an enquiry, consideration of the enquiry report, and deliberation by the competent authorities and Committee.

The Court therefore found no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting writ interference.

Independently, applying Neha Swa-sahayata Samooh, it held that the Court must give primacy to the health and nutritional interests of school-going children and should avoid an order that could disrupt the supply of mid-day meals.

The petitioner’s objection regarding the authority of the Janpad Panchayat was insufficient to justify interference, particularly since the competent Zila Panchayat authority had considered the matter and directed its placement before the Committee.

It held that the alleged violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction involved disputed factual and procedural questions that did not establish any patent illegality in the impugned action.

In view of the material showing compliance with the prescribed process and the overriding public interest in ensuring nutritious and hygienic mid-day meals for children, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.