IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 2220 of 2010 Between: Smt. Ravi Ramanamma ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar, Korisipadu Mandal, Prakasam District and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.2220 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Cooking Agency by the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, Korisipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, vide proceedings dated 04-10-2006 for implementation of the Mid-day Meal Scheme in Mandal Parishad Primary School of Anubroluvaripalem village. According to the petitioner, she has been implementing the scheme and providing mid-day meal to the students studying in Mandal Parishat Primary School of Anubroluvaripalem village, without any complaint whatsoever. But however, the 1st respondent, abruptly, without putting her on notice, issued proceedings dated 12-01-2010 terminating the petitioner from the Scheme on the ground that the petitioner is not implementing the mid day meal scheme in accordance with the established procedure. According to her, the proceedings dated 12-01- 2010 removing her from the Scheme is on account of the report of the President, Pamidipadu Gram Panchayat village. As the proceedings were issued without putting the petitioner on notice, the same are questioned in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. 3. From a perusal of the proceedings, it is clear that the 1st respondent issued impugned proceedings by simply referring ‘Sarpanch Pamidipadu Gram Panchayat’, but it is nowhere stated in the impugned proceedings that the petitioner was put on notice. When it is the contention of the petitioner that she has been providing mid-day meals to the children as per the Scheme without there being any complaint, the Tahsildar before issuing the proceedings, dated 12-01-2010, should have put the petitioner on notice. As the same is not done, the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent is contrary to the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed with certain directions to the 1st respondent. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings dated 12-01-2010, issued by the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, Korisipadu Mandal, Prakasam District are set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to hold an enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner by the Sarpanch, Pamidipadu Gram Panchayat, by issuing notice to the petitioner calling for explanation and thereafter, issue necessary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 5th February 2010 KVR