IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12738 of 2010 DIWAKAR TIWARI S/O HARI KISHORE TIWARI, R/O VILL RASAUTI, P.S.KATAIYA, DISTT-GOPALGANJ. …..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, MID DAY MEAL SCHEME(M.M.S.) DIRECTORATE OF MID DAY MEAL BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ 4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, GOPALGANJ 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, GOPALGANJ 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER CUM DISTRICT INCHARGE, MID DAY MEAL SCHEME, GOPALGANJ 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANCHDEORI, GOPALGANJ 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, PANCHDEORI, GOPALGANJ…………………………………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey No.5, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, AC to SC-4 ----------- 08/ 27.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a composite counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.5, 6 and 8 has been filed on 06.10.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 07.12.2010. 3.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 31.09.2010 (Annexure-4) by which the authorities concerned directed the Block Education Officers concerned to take the grains and distribute it to the various schools for Mid Day Meals. The petitioner further seeks extension of agreement for the period beyond 31.03.2010 by - 2 - formally entering into a fresh agreement so that an opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to transport the Mid Day Meal Ration and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although 69.1 quintals of grains were directed to be supplied by the petitioner but for that only 68 quintals of grains were provided by the authorities to the petitioner. There is nothing to show that any grievance with respect there to was ever raised by the petitioner before any of the authorities. 5. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that there is no dispute that for the purposes of providing food grains for Mid Day Meal Scheme an agreement was entered between the petitioner and the authorities on 08.12.2009 according to which grains were to be supplied for various schools. However, it is quite apparent that supply was made by the authorities to the petitioner, but thereafter no step was taken by the petitioner nor any effort was made by the petitioner before the authorities concerned to comply the further terms of agreement. Furthermore, the period of contract had also expired on 31.03.2010. Hence, the authorities concerned were quite justified in passing the impugned orders for providing Mid Day Meal to the students as the agreement with the petitioner had already expired much earlier and the supply made by the petitioner was also not satisfactory. - 3 - 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)