Disposed¶26

Kunti Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2025WPC/755/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPC No. 755 of 2025; Kunti Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh v. State of Chhattisgarh; Mid Day Meal; Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Yojna; self help group; cancellation of allotment; Block Education Officer Ramchandrapur; non-speaking order; no show cause notice; no opportunity of hearing; violation of principles of natural justice; order quashed; liberty to pass fresh order after hearing; Balrampur-Ramanujganj; Primary School Panchawal; decided 07.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.07.2024 quashed, with liberty to the Block Education Officer to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 5 in accordance with law. ¶26

Kunti Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 cancelling the petitioner's allotment of Mid Day Meal preparation work and re-allotting it to respondent no. 5, being a non-speaking order passed without reasons, without opportunity of hearing and without show cause notice, is sustainable in law. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The impugned order was passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.07.2024 is quashed.

¶25

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Block Education Officer to take necessary action and pass a fresh order by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5, in accordance with law, and to take a decision thereafter.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPC No. 755 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma, J., single bench), decided 07.07.2025: By order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.07.2024, the Block Education Officer, Ramchandrapur, detached the petitioner self help group (Kunti Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh) from preparation of Mid Day Meal under the Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Yojna at Primary School, Panchawal, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, and allotted the work to respondent no. 5 (Ganga Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh) without assigning any reason and without issuing any show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing. Holding the order to be a non-speaking order passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law, the Court quashed it and granted liberty to the Block Education Officer to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to both self help groups, in accordance with law. Petition disposed of accordingly.

2025:CGHC:31022

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 755 of 2025

¶6

Kunti Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh Through Its President Smt Teja Devi W/o Late Narayan Yadav, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Pachawal, Gram Panchayat - Pachawal, Tahsil Ramchandrapur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The President, Department Of Food Civil Supply And Consumer Protection Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Post Office Rakhi, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Collector Balrampur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, (C.G.)

¶12

4 - The Block Education Officer Ramchandrapur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Ganga Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh Village - Pachawal, Gram Panchayat - Pachawal, Tahsil - Ramchandrapur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ---Respondent

¶14

For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L.

¶15

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

¶16

07/072025

¶17

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.07.2024, by which the respondent no. 4

¶18

¶19

Block Education Officer has detached the petitioner from the work allotted to the petitioner’s self help group for preparation of Mid Day Meal under the Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Yojna to Primary School, Panchawal Tahsil Ramchandrapur District Balrampur Ramanujganj.

¶20

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.07.2024 by which the petitioner allotment order has been cancelled by allotting the said work to the respondent no. 5 is a non- speaking order without assigning any reason and no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and no show cause notice has been issued seeking any explanation and without assigning any reason on what basis the petitioner allotment 04.01.2021 has been cancelled.

¶21

3. Learned State counsel submits that the Block Education Officer has detached the petitioner from the work of preparation of Mid Day Meal in Middle School Panchwal Tahsil Ramchandrapur District Balrampur and already allotted the work to the respondent no. 5 and the Block Education Officer is empowered to pass order allotting the said work to various self help group, hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the Block Education Officer.

¶22

4. I have heard counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.07.2024.

¶23

5. The Block Education Officer without assigning any reason just

¶24

¶25

cancelled the allotment of work to the petitioner and allotted the said work of preparation of Mid Day Meal to the respondent no. 5. It appears that order impugned is a order which has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice. The order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.07.2024 is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the Block Education Officer to take necessary action and may pass a fresh order by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no. 5 in accordance with law and take a decision thereafter.

¶26

6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

SD/- ( Arvind Kumar Verma ) JUDGE

¶28

Jyoti

Kunti Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunti 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

Sahasram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santuram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Sukhwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hem Kumar Sidar Vs Axis Bank Limited

Gulab Bai Mishra Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.