@¥ CI? ”VJ” IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ~ AT BILASPUR ‘ C.G. émga 1‘ ggm w.P. (c) No % éé OF 2010 Smt Ganga Bal W/o Bhagwat Prasad Caste ' Mehar Aged about45 years President Indira women self help group, Budhlkhar TahsH— % Mastun District- Bllaspur (C G) PRTITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary Panchyat and rural development department D K S Bhawan Ralpur (C G) 2 Chlef Executive Offcer DrstrrctPanchyat ..... Brlaspur C G 3 ChIefExecutIve Officer Janpad Panchyat Mastun Dlstrrct- Brlaspur (C G) V 4 Sanu women self helf group, Budhikhar, ‘ Throug Presrdent r r r \ 7 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA #“A RESPONDENTS / ‘ " ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH '. BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO2566 OF 2010 PETITIONER Smtl Ganga Bal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. I Present :— Shri Ashok Dubey, Advocate‘for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.3. RESPONDENTS - ORDER IORAL) (Passed on this 16f“ day of September. 2010) Heard Ieamed counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on account of some alleged illegalities and irregularities committed by the respondent No.4 in running the Mid Day Meal Scheme (for short ”the Scheme’y the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, by order dated 23/10/2609 (Annexure P/1) cancelled the Scheme allotted to the respondent No.4 and granted to the petitioner, to run the Scheme in Primary School, Budikhar. Accordingly, the petitioner is operating the said scheme Without any complaint of the public of Gram Panchayat and with greats sincerity and honestly. Thereafter, by order dated.17/O5/2010 (Annexure P/3), the respondent No.3 again allotted the Scheme in favour of the respondent No.4 in an illegal and arbitrary manner and without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in spite of the fact that there is not a single complain against the petitioner. Thus, this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as respondent No.3 submit that earlier on account of certain \ complaints received against the respondent No.4, the allotment .\\\ r r Q order in respect of the Scheme was granted in favour of the petitioner on temporary basis for running the scheme smoothly without any interruption, However, on due enquiry conducted by'the Block Education Officer, as per the instructions of the Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur, the complaint received against the respondent No.4 was found false and baseless and, as such, the allotment for running the Scheme was restored in favour of the respondent No.4. Thus, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order (Annexure P73) and the petition may be dismissed. Be that as it may, the impugned order dated 17/05/2010 (Annexure P/3) was passed without following the due process of law and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No.4, in the interest ofjustice, the matter is remitted back to the respondent No3 to consider and decide the case in dispute, in accordance with law and on its own merits, after following the due process of law and pass fresh order. 5) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed oft Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the above observations, if any, may not be construed, as opinion of this Court, while considering the, case of the petitioner as well as the respondent No4. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge ' -V 1‘;:‘\,,/ “m,” a er r ’ ,, M... ;; 7 Sty.