Jai Maa Santoshi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:19138

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1804 of 2021

¶6

Jai Maa Santoshi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Through - President Nageshwari Sahu W/o Ramavtar Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, President Of Jai Maa Santosi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Vill - Jhalmala, Police Station And Tahsil Masturi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Through Its President R/o Village - Jhalmaha, Post And Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Additional Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Masturi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶15

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

25.4.2026

¶18

1. Heard on Admission.

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to a report submitted by the Additional Tahsildar, Seepat, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, vide order dated 24.06.2020, relieved Respondent No. 2

¶20

Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date: 2026.04.27 17:26:23 +0530

¶21

2

¶22

from the work of preparation of the Mid-Day Meal at Primary School, Jhalmala, as the complaint against Respondent No. 2 was found to be genuine. It is further submitted that, subsequent to the removal of Respondent No. 2, the work of preparation of the Mid-Day Meal was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.09.2020 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, District Bilaspur. However, an appeal preferred by Respondent No. 2 was allowed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, vide the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure P/1). Learned counsel further submits that aforesaid order has been passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, hence, it is prayed that this petition may be admitted for hearing.

¶23

3. In reply, learned counsel for the State submits that entrustment of work of preparation of Mid-Day Meal is purely executive work assigned by the Revenue authorities, therefore, strict procedural requirement of law are not required to be followed. He further submits that since the Order dated 24.06.2020 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), without recording the evidence of independent witnesses or the persons allegedly aggrieved, therefore, said Order was quashed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur. Hence, it is submitted that instant petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected.

¶24

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

5. As per the record, respondent No.2 was engaged in the work of preparation of Mid-Day Meals at Primary School Jhalmala. During the COVID-19 period, a complaint was made alleging that substandard pulses had been distributed to some students. Pursuant thereto, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, sought a report from the Tahsildar. However, the

¶26

3

¶27

Tahsildar submitted the report without recording the statements of independent witnesses or the aggrieved students / their family members, to whom the alleged substandard pulses were distributed. Order impugned shows that respondent No.2 conceded the fact that they had purchased two sacks of pulses from the shop, out of which, pulses of one sack was found substandard quality, as complained by the students. Upon receiving the complaint, respondent No.2 immediately collected those pulses and brought new sack of pulses and distributed the same to the students. At the relevant time, the Covid pandemic was going on.

¶28

6. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Bilapsur shows that only panchnama was prepared by the Additional Tahsildar and no statement of the independent witnesses or alleged victims/students were recorded.

¶29

7. Having considered the impugned Order dated 15.10.2020 (AnnexureP/1) and the reasons assigned by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur for setting aside order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi in Revenue Case No.43/B-121/2019-20, I do not find any gross perversity or illegality in the impugned order, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶30

8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶33

Judge

¶34

Bini

Jai Maa Santoshi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Maa Santoshi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hirendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tejram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Champeshwar Verma Vs Smt. Lokeshwari Verma

Smt. Punit Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hrishikesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrishti Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre Vs State of Chhattisgarh