1
Court No. 1
Writ Petition No. 3426 (MB) of 2010
Ekta Shakti Foundation
Vs.
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Sri T.J.S. Makkar, counsel for the State, says that instructions have
not been received.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at no point of
time, any complaint against the petitioner has been made nor in the order
itself any specific charge against the petitioner has been found to be proved
but only general allegations have been made and the contract of supply of
mid-day meal has been cancelled without affording any opportunity.
He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the impugned
order appears to have been passed in a casual manner without application of
mind, as it does not specifically say, whether at the time of first review
mission, the relevant papers were not shown or were not prepared by the
petitioner, but both the contingencies have been mentioned.
Placing reliance upon Clause 20 of the agreement, learned counsel
for the petitioner says that in case there was any complaint in the
performance of the functions by the petitioner, it was obligatory upon the
respondents to issue one week notice before taking any action.
Further, he says that the order has been passed by the District
Magistrate himself, though the contract was awarded by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari and the District Magistrate himself is the Arbitrator/Nodal Officer
under Clause 21, therefore, the petitioner cannot approach the District
Magistrate, though the order has been issued by the District Magistrate,
without any authority and jurisdiction.
We take notice of the fact that for the supply of mid-day meal,
persons are selected and contract is granted by the State functionaries, for
implementation of the said scheme of the Central Government.
We, therefore, in view of the fact that the impugned order is
absolutely a general order, which does not show as to what are the
shortcomings which can be attributed to the petitioner in the supply of mid-
day meal and also that it does show the non-application of mind for the
2
reasons as argued by the counsel for the petitioner and also the same having
been passed by the District Magistrate, who is the Arbitrator/Nodal Officer
and was having no authority to pass the said order and that too without
affording opportunity to the petitioner, stay the operation of the order dated
24.2.2010 till further orders of the Court.
Liberty is, however, given to the concerned authority to pass fresh
orders, after taking appropriate steps and giving opportunity to the
petitioner.
The respondents are granted three weeks’ time to file counter
affidavit. The respondents are also at liberty to move an application for
vacation of the interim order, while filing the counter affidavit.
Dated: 10.5.2010
MFA