1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 113 OF 2008 Mrs. Malti Ratan Howladar. ... .... Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Others. ... .... Respondents. Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner Mr. C. J. Joy with Mr. G. Hariharan i/by Mr. T. C. Kaushik for Respondent No.1. Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr. K.K.Singhvi Senior Advocate with Mr. S. S. Pakale for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and J. H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: This writ petition has been filed in the public interest and the main relief claimed in this writ petition is that the State Government should be directed to review all Government Resolutions relating to the mid day meal scheme in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court pronounced from time to time. Another relief claimed is that the scheme providing free mid day meals upto 8th Std. should be extended upto the 10th Std. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it 2 has been stated that the scheme is being extended to all the Schools which are entitled to the Scheme in terms of the Scheme framed by the State Government and the Central Government. The Central Government scheme, known as National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, 2006, mentions the background of the scheme that with a view to enhancing enrollment, retention and attendance and simultaneously improving nutritional levels among children, the scheme was formulated. It provided that this scheme would be available to the children in Classes I to V in the Government schools, local body schools, Government aided schools and also the children studying in centres run under the Education Guarantee Scheme and Alternative and Innovative Education Scheme. Now we are told that it has been extended upto 8th Std. The purpose of the scheme was to encourage the children, belonging to disadvantaged sections, to attend school more regularly and help them concentrate on classroom activities. The original scheme of 2003 also provided that the nutritional content of the food supplied should be 300 calories which was enhanced to 450 calories in the year 2006. It should also contain protein 12 gms. and should also have micro nutrients. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the contents of calories has been raised to 450 and the protein has also been provided, the micro nutrients such as iron, folic acid, Vitamin-A, 3 etc. are not being provided to the children. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai submitted that in the schools run by the Corporation the micro nutrients along with other contents prescribed under the scheme are being provided. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the Schools run by the State or the aided schools have not so far been providing the micro nutrients. She further submits that the Government has not passed any resolution for supply of micro nutrients but the Government will ensure that if the micro nutrients are not supplied they will be supplied by the suppliers in each school to each of the child within three months from today. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the scheme is not being implemented in all the schools as it was envisaged. We have gone through the scheme and found that the scheme is available to only those classes of schools which are referred to in the scheme and to which a reference has been made by us hereinabove and the Government having taken specific stand that the scheme is being implemented in all the schools to which the scheme is available and the petitioner having no evidence contrary to this stand taken by the Government, we will not be in a position to hold that the scheme is not being implemented in all the Schools to which it is applicable. In any case, the schools which do not fall within the category 4 of the schools mentioned in the scheme of Government of India in clause 2.2.1, are not entitled to this scheme. 4. Coming to the next ground that the scheme should be extended upto 10th Std., this submission cannot be accepted by this Court as it is for the Government to decide as to whether the scheme can be applied and should be applied upto the 10th Std. When the Supreme Court decided the issue in the year 2001 for the first time, the scheme was meant for the students upto the 5th Std. Then it was extended upto the 6th Std and then upto 8th Std. since there would be students who would want to pursue their studies beyond 8th Std. but for financial constraint may not be able to continue their study and if the facility of mid day meal is extended to them as well it may encourage or assist them or help them in continuing the school. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Government should consider extending scheme beyond 8th Std. It is for the Government and this court can not pass such a direction. 5. For other grievances that certain Government Resolutions are not being implemented, the Government has in its counter affidavit submitted that there is an autonomous organisation, namely, Yashwantrao Chavan Development Academy Pune (for short “YASHADA”) which is looking into the matter and if any improvements are needed they will be done according 5 to the report of the said Institution. 6. If the petitioner has still any grievance or anybody else has any grievance with regard to the implementation of the mid day meal scheme, they shall approach the said Yashwantrao Chavan Development Academy Pune and if the said Yashwantrao Chavan Development Academy Pune receives any such grievance they shall consider the matter and submit appropriate recommendation to the Government. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (J. H. BHATIA, J)