Pooja Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:42621

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4454 of 2024

¶6

1 - Pooja Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh Piparpan, Through The President Namely Muniya Yadav, Wife Of Shri Shivprasad Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Piparpan, Tehsil Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supply And Consumer Protection Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Collector Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Block Education Officer Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Nikita Mahila Swayam Sahayatra Samuh Through Its President Munni Gupta, W/o Sudarshan Gupta, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Piparpan, Tehsil Ramchanrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

Digitallysigned byJYOTI JHADate:2025.08.2910:52:57+0530

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶19

21/08/2025

¶20

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶21

2

¶22

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the orders dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4/Block Education Officer, Rmchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj by which the work assigned to the petitioner for supplying mid-day meal to Govt. Middle School- Piparpan, Block Ramchandrapur has been stopped without any complaint and without having any jurisdiction.

¶23

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed by cancelling the work assigned to the petitioner vide allotment order dated 31.12.2023 for supply mid-day meal to Govt. Middle School- Piparpan, Block Ramchandrapur. The order has been passed without any complaint received against the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing. The respondent No.4 without having any jurisdiction to pass such orders, cancelled the work assigned to the petitioner by a non-speaking order which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶24

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that the work assigned to the petitioner was awarded to the Women Self Help Group- Piparpan by cancelling the allotment order of the petitioner on the basis of complaint. Hence, the present writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has not brought the said fact before the Hon’ble Court.

¶25

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 submits that the same work has been assigned to him for supplying mid-day meal to Govt. Middle School- Piparpan, Block Ramchandrapur, passed by respondent No.4 hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶26

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 31.07.2024.

¶27

7. The impugned order dated 31.07.2024 appears to be a nonspeaking order i.e. without assigning any cogent reason, whereby the work assigned to the petitioner for supplying mid-day meal to Govt. Middle School- Piparpan, Block Ramchandrapur has been

¶28

3

¶29

cancelled. The said order passed by respondent No.4 without application of mind and for what reason the work assigned to the petitioner has been stayed or cancelled has not been mentioned which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

¶30

8. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4/ Block Education Officer, Balrampur is hereby quashed. However, a liberty is reserved for the State to pass necessary order in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if so desired.

¶31

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge

¶34

Jyoti

Pooja Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nandini Jain Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Harish Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajesh Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Murli Shyam Rahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary

Mohd. Jawed Alam Vs Regional Transport Authority

Chanda Ke Anjor Mahila Swa-Sahayta Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh