Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sharda Swa Sahayata Samooh vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2011
W.P. No.6750.11
Writ Petition No. 6750 of 2011
26/09/2011
Shri Sudeep Patel, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
Shri Rupesh Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
Shri Dependra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6.
Order dated 23-10-2010 passed by Additional Collector, Panna, is being challenged; whereby, revision under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 has been allowed.
The revision was directed against an order dated 11-06-2010 passed by the Sub Divisional officer, Shah Nagar, district Panna; whereby, he cancelled the allotment of work of distribution of Mid Day Meal in Govt. Primary School, Mahuakheda, Shah Nagar, Panna, granted to respondent No. 5.
Order was challenged before the Additional Collector, who by the impugned order quashed the same on the ground that the order dated 11-06- 2010 was passed without affording any W.P. No.6750.11 opportunity of hearing.
Order is being challenged on the ground that under the Mid Day Meal Scheme only those persons can form a self help group who are below poverty line; whereas, the members and the office bearers of respondent No. 5-group were above poverty line which rendered them ineligible, for favouring self help group and distribution of Mid Day meal.
When inquired from the petitioner as to whether before passing of order dated 11- 06-2010 any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent-group, learned counsel submits that the order dated 11- 06-2010 does not reflect this fact.
It is a cardinal principle that in case even when an administrative decision is taken and if it leads to civil consequences, the affected person is entitled for an opportunity of hearing. In the case at hand the same is missing. The order dated 11-06- 2010 no-where mention the fact that petitioner was heard.
In view whereof we intends to uphold the order dated 23-10- 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Revisional Authority though quashed the order dated W.P. No.6750.11 11-06- 2010 but in absence of any further direction no efforts are made to take action on the complaint regarding the ineligibility of respondent No. 5.
Taking into consideration the entire fact and refraining from entering into the correctness of the complaint against respondent No. 5 we are of considered opinion that the cause of justice would be sub-served if the matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Shah Nagar, district Panna.
It is, therefore, ordered that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the effected persons shall pass a reasoned and cogent order in respect of the complaint against respondent No. 5. Let such decision be taken within 60 (sixty) days from the date of communication of this order. The interim order shall continue till then.
The petition is finally disposed of. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) (T.K.KAUSHAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
SC