Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jai Hanuman Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2013
Writ Petition No.1939/2013
5.3.2013
Shri S. P. Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri S. M. Lal, Government Advocate, for respondent nos.1
to 4.
Shri Pramod Kumar Chatuvedi, Advocate, for respondent no.5.
The petitioner is a self-help group of women and does the work of supplying mid-day meal to different Government schools in district Sidhi. Likewise, respondent no.5 is also a self-help group of women and does the same work.
By an agreement dated 10.3.2008, the petitioner was allotted the work of supplying mid-day meal to the students of Middle School, Dihuli, Teekar No.3, district Sidhi. There was no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner regarding its supply of mid-day meal to the schools. After more than seven years, respondent no.3 Sub-Divisional Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sidhi, vide order dated 31.7.2012 cancelled the petitioner's work of supplying mid-day meal and directed that respondent no.5 be allowed to supply mid-day meal to the students of Middle School, Dihuli, Teekar No.3, district Sidhi. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision before respondent no.2 Additional Commissioner, Rewa, and contended that no opportunity of hearing was granted before cancelling its contract of supplying mid-day meal. In reply, respondent no.5 averred that respondent no.3 has passed the order in its favour in compliance of certain instructions of the State Government. Respondent no.2 agreed with respondent no.5 and dismissed the petitioner's revision.
Respondent no.2 in paragraph 9 of his order dated 31.1.2013 has categorically held that there was no complaint against the petitioner nor its work order has been cancelled pursuant to any complaint. Respondent no.2 has, however, held that the petitioner's work of supplying mid-day meal has been allotted to respondent no.5 on the basis of certain instructions of the State Government. But the fact remains that before cancelling the work order of petitioner no opportunity of hearing was given to it. This factual position has also not been denied by the learned Government Advocate and by the counsel for respondent no.5.
In India, a liberal interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution readily brings in the requirements of natural justice to administrative action against a person. It has become an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequences should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. Further, in India the State and every public authority or instrumentality of the State must act reasonably in public interest and fairly for these requirements have also spelled out of Article 14 and the concept of rule of law. Article 14 is said to be the Constitutional Guardian of principles of natural justice.
Since the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing the orders dated 31.7.2012 and 30.1.2013 passed by respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 respectively are unsustainable. These orders are accordingly quashed.
The petition is allowed but without any order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules.
JUDGE ss