Allowed

M/s.Madina Podupu Lakshmi Group, v. The Mandal Level Mid Day Meals Committee

Telangana HC3 Oct 2012WP/30732/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the termination of the petitioner's midday meal agency for lack of proper notice and failure to consider the petitioner's explanation, allowing the writ petition and remitting the matter for appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.09.2012 is set aside. Liberty granted to the respondent to issue proper notice and take appropriate action.

M/s.Madina Podupu Lakshmi Group, Vs The Mandal… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30732 of 2012

¶3

Dated 03.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s.Madina Podupu Lakshmi Group

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Mandal Level Mid Day Meals Committee and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Girish Kumar

¶11

Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for School Education

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 14.09.2012 of respondent No.1, whereby it has terminated the midday meal agency of the petitioner.

¶15

The main ground on which the order of termination is questioned is that no proper notice was given to the petitioner before terminating its midday meal agency.

¶16

A perusal of the record shows that on 22.08.2012, respondent No.5 has issued a notice to the petitioner, wherein it has mentioned that on 21.08.2012, the cooks came to the school and left by stating that they will bring the vegetables and that they have not returned and cooked the meal and when a telephone call was made to the petitioner, the same was switched of. Respondent No.5, therefore, called upon the petitioner to state the reason why the midday meal was not cooked on 21.08.2012. Thereupon, the group leader of the petitioner has given a detailed explanation on 23.08.2012, wherein it was stated that as her husband has suffered a severe stomach pain, she has taken him to hospital at Bellary and that the telephone was not with her when respondent No.5 has made a call. She has also stated that as per the directions of respondent No.5, she has been cooking the meals as per the prescribed menu and that just for the sake of failure to cook meal on one day, she may not be given troubles.

¶17

A perusal of the impugned order shows that there was no reference either to the notice issued by respondent No.5 or the explanation submitted by the petitioner in reply to the said notice. In the first place, even the notice issued by respondent No.5 has not proposed any punishment of termination of the agency. Secondly, the

¶18

explanation submitted by the petitioner to the said notice issued by respondent No.5 has not even been considered. In the light of these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity of explaining its case before terminating its midday meal agency.

¶19

Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.09.2012 of respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.1 is, however, given liberty to issue proper notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action, if it is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner.

¶20

Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶21

As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.39209 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03^rd October, 2012 GHN

M/s.Madina Podupu Lakshmi Group, v. The Mandal Level Mid Day Meals Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Madina Podupu Lakshmi Group, v. The Mandal Level Mid Day Meals Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Mazheruddin Vs Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

M. Chandra Mohan Vs The District Cooperative Officer (Fac)

Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sarita Steel and Industries Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

Sunkara Venkanna, Vs The Superintending Engineer

M/s Babu Constructions Company, Vs Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.