itSS^ y S !SSsSSS3 S S!S A;Sfl ^^;S^S^S^^^^i'S^ ^^f^-^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^^^'^^?^^-:^^^'^^^^^^:^^^^^ @^%^^^^®'@^®?%%^lg^^i^^^^^% !s:^|ji®%^8:^%l^^fli®^^^^^^^^Si^ ^^^;%fl^?^l's^¥il^?^^®a^^sS§sil;®^:S^^^^^?^^S •:y-^.^":"^:fwvy^:^:-^"^S'-^^^S^W. i^," V, / ' HI6H COURT OF CHHATnSSARH AT BILASPUR WritJ>etition No. 118/2006 COftAM; Hon'ble 9nn S.ft.Nayak. Chief Justice & Hon'ble Siri D.R.Deshmukh, J. Petitioner Respondents Shrichand Sahu, Vice President, Nagar Panchoyat, Lawon, Block-Baloda Bazar, &istt. ftaipur (€6) Versus 1. State of C.G. through Secretary, School Education Oeptt., b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Raipur (CG) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Jenpad Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, Rajpur (C6) 4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchdyat, Utwon, Block-Bslodo, Bazar, Dist. (ce) Shri Prashant Alishra. Verma, t)y. 6.A. for the 5 I. <<tdvocate (Seneraf wi-th 5hri Utkarsh State/pespondents No.l & 2. &ir". Sumit Verma, Counsel for respondents No.3 &4. ORAL ;ER (Passed on 8.2.2006) The following oral order of +he Court S.R.NAYAK, C.J. In the letter dated 21.12.2005 of Shri Shrichand Sahu, Vice President. Nagar Panchayat, Lcwon, Raipur addressed to the Chief Justice of tfiis Court, it wus alieged 1+iat the students of Aiternative & Innovative Educa+ion Center, Lawan, Baloda Bazar are not served with mid-day meat. Treating ttie aboye tetter cbove as writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notice has been ordered. In response to notice, respondents No.3 & 4 vAo were entrusted with providing mid-day meal to the students of that Education Csnters, have filect their retur'n. In the return filed by respondent No.4, it is stated that tha benefit of the mid-dcr/ meal schems was extended to the students of the above Education Center only w.e.f. 28.01.2006. 2. In the course of hearin9, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 &4 told us that promptly the mid-day meal has been provided to the students of that Education Center w.e.f. 28.01.2006. 3. In view of what is stated in the return of respondent No.3 and the above subnnission of the learned counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4, we think that there is no need to take any further steps in this case. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of subject to what is stated in the return of third respondent and submission made on behatf of respondents No.3 & 4 by their counsel noted above. Sdl- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge •;„. ^^SE.^gg^^S