JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Through this writ petition the petitioner, who happens to be non-Governmental organization, involved in the distribution of the Mid-Day Meal (hereinafter referred to as MDM) to the children, studying in Junior Basic School and Senior Basic School, has challenged the decision dated 5.8.2010 taken by Committee, constituted by District Level Monitoring Cell for distribution of MDM, and order dated 12.8.2010, passed by District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar. The decision dated 5.8.2010 was taken by the committee in pursuance of the letter dated 13.7.2010, written by Additional Director, MDM Authority requiring the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to take action pursuant to the report of the Public Account Committee of Legislative Assembly. The decision contains three parts: (1) for illegal occupation of the premises of Primary School, Prem Nagar by the petitioner, the rent of the same be assessed through Tehsildar and the same be recovered from the petitioner; (2) the society be blacklisted and stopped from further work of MDM in the district; and (3) recovery of the embezzled amount alongwith 18% interest, whereas by order dated 12.8.2010, the District Basic Education Officer has blacklisted the petitioner and stopped taking work of supply of MDM and also passed an order for recovery after its assessment. 2. Before entering into the facts of the present case, we would like to go through the entire scheme meant for distribution of MDM and the objects lying behind the initiation of this scheme. The Apex Court in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. Union of India and others (a public interest litigation), realizing the pain and mental agony of the poor down-trodden nameless, faceless and voiceless persons, observed that there are existence of very large sections of poor persons, their right to life, right to food to those who can ill-afford to provide to their families two meals of a day and their misfortune becoming further grave during famine and draught. The Apex Court observed as under : “On 28th November, 2001, this Court directed the State Governments/Union Territories to implement MDM scheme by providing every child in every Government and Government aided primary school with a prepared MDM with a minimum content of 300 calories and 8-12 grams of protein each day of school for a minimum of 200 days. The Apex Court observed as under : “On 28th November, 2001, this Court directed the State Governments/Union Territories to implement MDM scheme by providing every child in every Government and Government aided primary school with a prepared MDM with a minimum content of 300 calories and 8-12 grams of protein each day of school for a minimum of 200 days. The said order further directed that those Government which provide dry rations instead of cooked meal, within 3 months, should start providing cooked meal in all Government and Government aided primary schools in half of the districts of the state (in order of poverty) and must, within further period of 3 months, extend the provision of cooked meal to the remaining parts of the State.” 3. Taking that into account, the MDM scheme was initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1995, under which every student of Primary School was provided 3 kg. wheat or rice. This scheme has not yielded expected positive result, as no improvement in attendance of students in school and in their health had been noted. Since in State of Tamil Nadu cooked meal was being provided in the schools to the children and there the response was beyond the limits of expectations, the Government of India issued a direction to every State to provide cooked MDM to all students of primary level. Taking note of the Supreme Court directions, as quoted in the preceding paragraph, the Government of U.P. vide orders dated 25.6.2004 and 8.9.2004 implemented the MDM scheme in every primary school of the State, and in 66 backward, undeveloped blocks, it was extended to the students studying in Senior Basic Schools also. It may be pointed out that according to the Government Order dated 6th June, 2007, 18600000 (one crore eighty six lacs) students studying in one lac Junior and Senior Basic Schools, situated in 52000 Gram Panchayats, Nagar Nigams, Nagar Panchayats and Municipalities were benefited under this scheme, which number has swelled now. 4. The 2004 Scheme contains detail mechanism for preparation, distribution of MDM and its monitoring. According to the Government Orders, for the schools running in rural areas, a committee at village level having four members was constituted, of which Gram Pradhan happened to be the Chairman. Likewise, in urban areas, ward level committee was constituted in the chairmanship of Corporator containing same members. According to the Government Orders, for the schools running in rural areas, a committee at village level having four members was constituted, of which Gram Pradhan happened to be the Chairman. Likewise, in urban areas, ward level committee was constituted in the chairmanship of Corporator containing same members. At the district level, another committee was constituted having nine members under the chairmanship of District Collector, and likewise, at the State level, ten member-committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Principal Secretary of the Basic Education Department. The scheme also avoided the involvement of teachers in the process of distribution and cooking, and for that purpose Self Help Group of women or NGO were required to be engaged. The detail of bearing of cost runs as under : (i) 25% from PMGY scheme. (ii) 25% financed by Government and (iii) 50% by providing food grain (2 kg. per student per month). 5. Initially, the conversion cost was Rs. 1 which was extended to Rs. 2 in the year 2006 per student per day, and subsequently, by the Government Order dated 26.12.2009 the conversion cost was increased w.e.f. 1st April, 2010 to Rs. 2.69 (now it is 2.89) per student per day to primary school level and Rs. 4.03 (now it is 4.33) per student per day of Senior Basic School students and from date of Government Order dated 26.12.2009, at present, 100 gms food grain is provided to primary school students and 150 gms to upper primary students. vide Government Order dated 24th April, 2010, a provision was made to engage a cook on payment of Rs. 1000.00 per month as honorarium of first 25 students, 2 cooks on 26 to 100 students, 3 cooks on 101 to 200 students, 4 cooks on 201 to 300 students and 5 cooks on 301 to 1000 students, 6 cooks on 1000 to 1500 students and 7 cooks beyond 1500 students. 6. 1000.00 per month as honorarium of first 25 students, 2 cooks on 26 to 100 students, 3 cooks on 101 to 200 students, 4 cooks on 201 to 300 students and 5 cooks on 301 to 1000 students, 6 cooks on 1000 to 1500 students and 7 cooks beyond 1500 students. 6. The norms of engagement of cooks, with respect to supply of MDM in the schools, where there is scheme of centralised kitchen and it is being run by the NGO, is given as under : dze la[;k fo|ky; esa ukekafdrNk=ksa dh la[;k vuqeU; jlksab;s dh la[;k 1 25 rd 1 2 26&100 2 3 101&200 3 4 201&300 4 5 301 ls 1000 5 6 1001&1500 6 7 1501&2000 7 8 2001&2500 8 9 2501&3000 9 10 3000 ls vf/kd ij izR;sd gtkj ij ,d vfrfjDr jlksbZ;k Pursuant to the Government Order of 2006, a menu containing detailed charts No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 containing contents of the nutritious elements and its quantity have also been provided for the convenience of person involved in the management of distribution of MDM. Those charts are given as under : 1- feM&Ms&fey ;kstuk lkIrkfgd vkgkj rkfydk ¼esuw½ [kk| inkFkZ ¼izfrNk=½ ek=k mtkZ izksVhu ewY; 100 cPpksa gsrq ¼dSyksjh½ ¼xzke esa½ ¼:i;s esa½ okafNr lkexzh 1 xsgWw dk vkVk 100 xzke 340 8-00 10 fdyks 2 ?kh@rsy 05 xzke 45 0 0-25 500 xzke 3 nky 25 xzke 70 5-00 0-50 2-5 fdyks 4 lCth 50 xzke 25 0 0-50 5 fdyks ¼v½ gjh lCth ¼c½ vU; 5 elkyk vk;ksMhu;qDr vko’;drkuqlkj 0-00 0-00 0-10 ued ds lkFk 6 bZ/ku 0-20 7 etnwjh ,oa iz’kklfud 0-40 O;; ;ksx 480 13-00 1-95 vFkok 2-00 :0 vf/kdre Rkfydk&1 jksVh ,oa lCth;qDr nky [kk| inkFkZ ek=k mtkZ izksVhu ewY; 100 cPpksa gsrq ¼izfrNk=½ ¼dSyksjh½ ¼xzke esa½ ¼:i;s esa½ okafNr lkexzh 1 pkoy 100 xzke 340 8-00 10 fdyks 2 rsy@?kh 14 xzke 126 0-00 0-70 1-4 fdyks 3 lCth ,oa lks;kchu 60 xzke 30 5-00 0-60 6 fdyks 4 elkys vkfn vko’;drkuqlkj 0-10 5 bZ/ku 0-20 6 etnwjh ,oa iz’kklfud 0-40 O;; ;ksx 496 13-00 :0 2-00 Rkfydk&2 pkoy&lCth@lkEHkj lks;kchu [kk| inkFkZ ek=k mtkZ izksVhu ewY; 100 cPpksa gsrq ¼izfrNk=½ ¼dSyksjh½ ¼xzke esa½ ¼:i;s esa½ okafNr lkexzh 1 pkoy 100 xzke 340 8-00 10 fdyks 2 nw/k 80 ehyh yhVj 150 5-00 1-10 8 yhVj 3 phuh 10 xzke 35 0-00 0-20 1 fdyks 4 esos vkfn 10 xzke 0-00 1-00 0-10 1 fdyks 5 bZ/ku 0-20 6 etnwjh ,oa iz’kklfud 0-40 O;; ;ksx 525 14-00 :0 2-00 Rkfydk&3 ehBk pkoy@[khj [kk| inkFkZ ek=k mtkZ izksVhu ewY; 100 cPpksa gsrq ¼izfrNk=½ ¼dSyksjh½ ¼xzke esa½ ¼:i;s esa½ okafNr lkexzh 1 pkoy 100 xzke 340 8-00 10 fdyks 2 rsy@?kh 14 xzke 126 0-00 0-70 1-4 fdyks 3 lCth ,oa lks;kchu 60 xzke 30 5-00 0-60 6 fdyks 4 elkys vkfn vko’;drkuqlkj 0-10 5 bZ/ku 0-20 6 etnwjh ,oa iz’kklfud 0-40 O;; ;ksx 496 13-00 :0 2-00 Rkfydk&4 iwMh&lCth@lks;kchu orZeku esa e/;kUg Hkkstu izkf/kdj.k ds funsZ'kkuqlkj iqM+h rFkk ehBs pkoy dks izfrcfUèkr dj fn;k x;k gS lkFk gh lkseokj ,oa xq:okj dks esuw esa nfy;k dks lfEefyr fd;k x;k gS rFkk le; le; ij ifjorZu ykxr esa o`f) Hkh dh x;hAÞ According to the Government Order dated 26th December, 2009 following norms have been prescribed : dzekad lkexzh izfr Nk= izfrfnu iz;qDr gksus okyh ek=k izkFkfed Lrj mPp izkFk0 Lrj 1 [kk|kUu 100 xzke 150 xzke 2 nky 20 xzke 30 xzke 3 lfCt;k ¼iRrsnkj lfgr½ 50 xzke 75 xzke 4 rsy ,oa olk 5 xzke 7-5 xzke 5 ued ,oa elkys vko’;drkuqlkj vko’;drkuqlkj 7. It may also be pointed out that for distributing the MDM in rural areas, the work has been handed over to the village Pradhan. Food grains, like wheat and rice are being made available through fair price shop agents and conversion cost by transfer of menu in MDM account of the said Institution. In the schools, requirement was made to have a register, containing every detail, e.g. the number of students who have received MDM, kind of foods, comments of teachers or guardians upon quality of meal and conversion costs and food grains. The Village Pradhan and the Head Master of the school were made responsible to complete the register. 8. In the urban area, normally the work has been entrusted to non-Governmental organization NGOs or self help group and to ensure the quantity and standard of MDM, Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate was nominated. There is also provision for constituting district level and block level task force to make spot inspections regularly and verifications of quality, cleanliness of kitchen set and health of students and ensuring use of branded oil, egg mark spices and iodine salt. Further programme was made for regular physical check- up of each student and cook alongwith providing dew warming tablets to them and prepare a chart of height and weight of every student and the group of mothers was also expected to be constituted for inviting them to check the quality of meal every day. 9. For ensuring the implementation of the scheme, normally for the urban area as per agreement, it was made obligatory to make arrangements in addition to what has been narrated above for cooking food in two phases in each Cluster Resource Center (hereinafter referred to as CRC), to make available details of utilization of chart of conversion cost in every month, prepared by the Chartered Accountant and also vetted by the Chairman of the committee. It will also transpire from the perusal of the scheme of the Government that a district level committee as well as task force consisting higher officers was required to be constituted for making regular inspection of MDM in schools. The object of scheme appears to be very laudable and if we go by the literal terminology, it is a scheme meant for serving humanity at large on the line of losZ HkoUrq lqf[ku % 10. The object of scheme appears to be very laudable and if we go by the literal terminology, it is a scheme meant for serving humanity at large on the line of losZ HkoUrq lqf[ku % 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court has realized and virtually seen the pain and helplessness of the crying mass in the remote rural areas knowing nothing except the keenness of anyhow survival without there being any sense of a zeal or effort to get education and make effort to reach the line of living of healthy, wealthy and learned people. 11. The Apex Court, in fact, has gone to the extent of the lowest strata of living those having no name, no face, no voice. In this background, we would like to examine whether the laudable object which has been intended to achieve by the Apex Court, has reached to its destination, or it is only a paper work and mere formality like twinkling in the dark sky. This we would like to discuss in the context of the present case. Although sitting under this kind of jurisdiction, number of cases on the line are coming before us and are being disposed of on the basis of settled principles without going into further details. Here, we would like to analyse these things in the present context. The facts of the case: 12. The petitioner happens to be registered a society renewed up to January, 2011, entered into an agreement for distribution of the MDM. It is stated in the writ petition that it has a very modern kitchen, prepared after investing Rs. 80,00,000.00. It is also stated that the appreciation certificate has also been issued by the concerned authorities of the State Government, viz., Special Secretary, District Magistrate, A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue) and District Basic Education Officer. 13. It is also stated that the petitioner’s work was appreciated by Shri J.S. Deepak, Secretary, State Project Director, SSA & Secretary to Government of U.P., Basic Education Department. Shri Kirit S. Parikh, Member, Planning Commission has also visited the spot and seen the kitchen and also issued the certificate containing, “Sewa is doing a very important job very well. I was impressed by the organized effort by the clean and well maintain environment and the dedication of true job. Shri Kirit S. Parikh, Member, Planning Commission has also visited the spot and seen the kitchen and also issued the certificate containing, “Sewa is doing a very important job very well. I was impressed by the organized effort by the clean and well maintain environment and the dedication of true job. You have shown how Mid-Day-Meal could be provided in Urban Area in an effective way instant divesting efforts.” Further, on 26.11.2009 Shri Lalit Pradeep, Principal, District Education & Training Institute, Lucknow has also given very good remarks, which has been brought on record as Annexure ‘5’ to the writ petition. 14. It appears the petitioner pursuant to an agreement, has started distribution of MDM since October, 2004 and after expiry of the term has been permitted to work without there being any formal contract and renewal and vide order dated 19.6.2010, it was directed that for distribution of MDM for the year 2010-2011 fresh application be invited and till the new selection takes place, the petitioner society be permitted to continue to work. 15. It appears large number of complaints had been received regarding the irregular distribution of MDM and other irregularities committed by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the matter was inquired into and reported to the Public Account Committee of Legislative Assembly and thereafter the District Level Committee took decision to take action against the petitioner by putting it on the black list, to stop the distribution of MDM and to pass an order of recovery with respect to the misutilisation of the menu alongwith 18% of the interest and realized the rent for unauthorised use of school premises. Pursuant thereto the District Basic Education Officer passed the order dated 12.8.2010 stopping the distribution of MDM through the petitioner, blacklisted the petitioner for participation in the future scheme, ordered for recovery of rent for the illegal occupation and construction of the kitchen in the campus of the school and other embezzled amount. 16. Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the said decision submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In his submissions, the order of blacklisting cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. 16. Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the said decision submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In his submissions, the order of blacklisting cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of M/s Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travencore Ltd. and another, AIR 1994 SC 1277 ; and M/s Monika Plastics Pipes (P) Ltd. v. Director of Industries U.P. Kanpur and others, 1998 ACJ 164. He further submitted that the order impugned has been passed without jurisdiction, that too without holding an inquiry. 17. In reply to the writ petition, two counter-affidavits have been filed. One counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, through Shri Govind Saxena, Additional Chief Standing Counsel. This affidavit was required to be filed by the Court. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 3, 4 and 6, through Shri J.N. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel. 18. The District Magistrate in his personal affidavit stated that the petitioner was engaged by executing an agreement under the Government Orders dated 25.6.2004 and 8th September, 2004 after selection on the basis of task and full appraisal for providing MDM in the Primary School of the urban area of the district Kanpur Nagar. As per agreement dated 13.10.2004, the petitioner was under an obligation that in addition to other things, he would make arrangement for cooking food at two places in CRC, to make suitable details of utilisation chart of conversion cost in each month, prepared by the Chartered Accountant and also to abide by the directions and terms and conditions, issued by the Department from time to time. 19. In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that a team of Assistant Audit Officer (P.A.M.D.M.) while making audit from 8.6.2007 to 21.6.2007 of the office regarding MDM, required documents of the petitioner’s institution, which included the copy of agreement, payment of conversion cost and copy of renewed agreement. 19. In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that a team of Assistant Audit Officer (P.A.M.D.M.) while making audit from 8.6.2007 to 21.6.2007 of the office regarding MDM, required documents of the petitioner’s institution, which included the copy of agreement, payment of conversion cost and copy of renewed agreement. Again Deputy Accountant General vide D.O. Letter dated 26.11.2007 required the petitioner to make available the records of MDM, but in spite of said information, during audit of record of B.S.A. w.e.f. 3.12.2007 to 10.12.2007 required records/documents were neither placed by the petitioner before the audit party nor supplied thereafter. 20. The relevant contents of the audit party report have been given in detail in paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit, which is reproduced below : “The Audit party after inspection of utilisation report for the month of November 2004 furnished by the N.G.O. found that N.G.O. had spent 55% of conversion cost on administrative expenses against 20% admissible in that account, 23% of conversion cost was utilised on purchase of ingredients against 70% prescribed limit and against 10% of conversion cost prescribed for fuel the N.G.O. has spent 22% on it and ultimately concluded that N.G.O. did not utilise required amount of conversion cost on purchase of vegetables, Dal, Ghee and other ingredients which resulted into supply of menu in sufficient quality of protein and calorie to the children.” 21. Pursuant thereto, the District Magistrate vide letter dated 15.12.2009, directed the District Basic Education Officer to send his explanation to the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, U.P. within a week. It appears pursuant to the said order, the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 31.1.2008, required the petitioner to furnish his reply regarding the audit report, and the petitioner in response thereof, sent its reply on 4.8.2008 stating that the Government has not provided any menu of the MDM detail and the guidelines how the conversion cost is to be utilised. In response thereto, the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 7.2.2008, again asked the petitioner to submit appropriate reply to the audit objection as the same was evasive and did not contain proper material as desired by the audit Department. It is also stated that number of Government Orders have been issued from time to time providing menu of MDM. 22. It is also stated that number of Government Orders have been issued from time to time providing menu of MDM. 22. In paragraph 22 it is stated that on 7.2.2008 again the District Basic Education Officer had required the petitioner to submit proper reply to the audit objection. The petitioner instead of giving the proper reply has attached certain appreciation letters issued by the various authorities to the petitioner. The MDM Authority vide his letter dated 31.3.2009, required the report of audit objection. As per direction of MDM Authority, the detailed parawise reply from the office of the District Basic Education Officer was sent through letter dated 24.4.2009 and 4.5.2009. On 23.5.2009, the District Collector sought direction from the MDM Authority regarding audit objection of the petitioner institution as to vacate the Prem Nagar School campus. 23. In paragraph 24-A it is stated that inspite of repeated requests, the MDM Authority had not given any direction with regard to taking an action against the petitioner. In paragraph 25 it is stated that the petitioner since 2004 to May 2007 has not submitted documents regarding utilisation of conversion cost and distribution of MDM material inspite of repeated reminders. It is only on 12.7.2010, the Director, MDM, U.P. Lucknow in pursuance of the Public Accounts Committee report issued direction to take action against the petitioner regarding the irregularities pointed out in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and in pursuance thereof, the impugned order has been passed. 24. It is only on 12.7.2010, the Director, MDM, U.P. Lucknow in pursuance of the Public Accounts Committee report issued direction to take action against the petitioner regarding the irregularities pointed out in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and in pursuance thereof, the impugned order has been passed. 24. For better appreciation, the relevant extract of the minutes of the Public Account Committee is reproduced below : ^^ekU;oj] dkuiqj uxj esa ,eMh,e dh vkiwfrZ esa ikbZ xbZ dfe;ksa ds fuokj.k gsrq ,dy fdpsu O;oLFkk dks lekIr dj {ks=okj Lo;alsoh laLFkkvks dks dk;Z vkoafVr djus dh O;oLFkk dj nh x;h gSA orZeku esa 'kgjh {ks= ,oa Vkmu ,fj;k esa 6 ,uthvks dk;Zjr gSA ysfdu ;gka ij ftykf/kdkjh us fdlh dks nf.Mr ugh fd;k gSA & & & & & & & & & Jh lHkkifr& ;g vR;Ur xEHkhj fo"k; gS] e/;kg~ Hkkstu dh tks ewy Hkkouk gS mlds izfr bldks lapkfyr djus okys yksx iwjh rjg ls mnklhu gS vkSj bu xjhc cPpksa ds eqWg ls fuokyk Nhuus ls cM+k vijk/k vkSj dksbZ ugh gks ldrk gS vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa fdlh Lo;a lsoh laLFkk }kjk ;g vfu;ferrk dh xbZ vkSj mls ftykf/kdkjh }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k vkSj mlds ckotwn Hkh mlds fo:) dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh ugh dh xbZ rks blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd dgh u dgh blesa fdlh Lrj ij ftykf/kdkjh egksn; dh Hkh lgHkkfxrk jgh gS] blfy, buls Hkh bl ckr dk Li”Vhdj.k fy;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj vxj og Hkh blesa lafyIr jgs gS rks buds fo:) Hkh dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg, A bl fo"k; dks xEHkhjrk ls ysrs gq, bldh tkap vkSj bl ij l[r dk;Zokgh djrs gq, lfefr dks voxr djk;sa vkSj blds fy, ,d eghus dk le; fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj blh ds lkFk lfefr dks bl ckr ls Hkh voxr djk;saxs lfpo egksn; fd vkius dgk fd geus izkslhtjy psUtst djk;s gS vkSj cPpksa dks feyus okys lEiwjd ekbdzksU;wfjV~z;saV mUgsa feyus pkfg, rks tc ls ;g izksVhu cPpksa dks fey jgk gS rc ls cPpksa dk LokLF; c<+k gS ;k ?kVk gSA^^ On the same line, the District Basic Education Officer has also filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said counter-affidavit which are relevant, are reproduced below: “12. 3, 4 and 6. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said counter-affidavit which are relevant, are reproduced below: “12. That District Basic Education Officer intimated to the District Collector in pursuance thereof proceeding for engagement of new institution/NGO for distribution of MDM was initiated and accordingly 6 institutions were engaged vide order dated 16.2.2008. The petitioner any how again managed to get contract of supply of Mid Day Meal for certain Area. 13. That the petitioner since November 2004 up to May, 2007 has been paid excess amount of Rs. 43,69,157.00 as conversion cost and 3676.91 qtl. of food grains since the actual number of student, who received MDM is lesser than the 80% of total registered strength of students for which the conversion cost and food grain was received by the petitioner. In the similar fashion from July, 2007 up to December 2008 total amount of Rs. 9,65,838.12 as conversion cost and 972.32 qtl. of food grains was paid in excess. Thus the aforesaid total amount of Rs. 53,34,995.00 conversion cost and Rs. 4649.33 qtl. of food grains is to be recovered or to be taken back from the petitioner. 14. That it is also relevant to submit here that since the engagement till the date of cancellation of its agreement the petitioner has not submitted any utilisation chart prepared by Chartered Accountant. Further, under the direction of MDM authority U.P. during audit made by the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner institution no documents with regard to utilisation of conversion cost and food grains submitted by the petitioner on the pretext that all the records were destroyed in the water logging occurred in the office of the institution. This attitude of petitioner itself reflects that the petitioner had nothing to show, but a lot to hide. In this regard audit report of Chartered Accountant submitted on 8.9.2009 also makes it clear that the Bills and Cash Books for the Year 2007-2008 contains a lot of difference which were not explained by the petitioner.” 25. This attitude of petitioner itself reflects that the petitioner had nothing to show, but a lot to hide. In this regard audit report of Chartered Accountant submitted on 8.9.2009 also makes it clear that the Bills and Cash Books for the Year 2007-2008 contains a lot of difference which were not explained by the petitioner.” 25. In response to counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed, and in reply to paragraphs 1 to 17 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the contents being matter of record, need no reply, meaning thereby, the petitioner has admitted the deficiency in supply of MDM according to the prescribed menu and standard as has been intended by the State Government and the MDM authority from time to time. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has denied the allegations made in the impugned order and stated that the petitioner was permitted by the District Administration to prepare the food at one place. So far as non-supply of the agreement to the audit party is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner was not made aware of the same, however, the same was also available with respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 4 could supply the same to the audit party. Regarding the misutilisation of the conversion cost, it is stated that earlier, the conversion cost was Rs. 1 which was a very meager amount, and therefore, it was diverted to some other head. With regard to the non-supply of the non-standard MDM, the petitioner has stated that no such complaint was received to the petitioner, on the contrary, appreciation letters have been given by various authorities to the petitioner. So far as non-supply of the record of MDM by the audit party is concerned, petitioner has stated that no such letter was given to the petitioner. It is stated that it appears that correspondence was made between respondent No. 4 and the audit party. According to the adoption of the guidelines, issued in the Government Order dated 2.8.2006, it is stated that the guidelines could not be implemented from the retrospective effect, therefore no objection on that count be raised for the distribution of MDM in the year 2004. 26. A rejoinder affidavit on the same line has been filed to the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6. 27. We have heard Dr. 26. A rejoinder affidavit on the same line has been filed to the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6. 27. We have heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri J.N. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel, Shri Arjun Prasad Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the MDM Authority, and perused the record. 28. From the perusal of the record and the petitioner’s stand taken in the writ petition, one thing is apparent that the petitioner has been permitted to supply MDM till the date of passing of impugned order. However, vide order dated 19.6.2010 it was provided that for the Session 2010-2011 fresh tenders be invited and the petitioner be permitted to work till the new selection takes place. In para 26 of the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6, it is stated that the petitioner has been permitted to work without there being any formal contract. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner in para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit, which contains the reply of para 26 of the counter-affidavit. The petitioner has also neither brought on record the agreement before this Court nor supplied to audit party, therefore, the question of further continuance of the petitioner, even if it is assumed that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, and stoppage of its further working, we see no reason to interfere with that part of the order, as at present, there is no existing contract in favour of the petitioner for distribution of MDM. 29. So far as the order of blacklisting is concerned, the petitioner’s case is that this order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. This part of the allegation made in the writ petition has been denied by the respondents by filing counter-affidavits, i.e., by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as well as by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6. Various notices have been brought on record requiring the petitioner to file reply of the notices. The petitioner has also filed reply of few notices issued by the respondents. But, so far as the separate notice disclosing intention of passing of an order for blacklisting the petitioner on the basis of charges levelled against him and recovery is concerned, no separate notice has been issued. The petitioner has also filed reply of few notices issued by the respondents. But, so far as the separate notice disclosing intention of passing of an order for blacklisting the petitioner on the basis of charges levelled against him and recovery is concerned, no separate notice has been issued. Otherwise also, even if the stand taken by the respondents with regard to the issuance of notice before passing the impugned order is taken to be true, we find from the perusal of the impugned order that, the petitioner’s reply has not been considered while passing the impugned order. 30. It is well settled that an order which leads to civil consequences cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. 31. The Apex Court in the case of M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another, AIR 1975 SC 266 , held that: “12. ————— The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by discrimination. The order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of black-listing. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality. ———————— 15. The blacklisting order does not pertain to any particular contract. The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It caste a slur. It creates a barrier between the persons blacklisted and the Government in the matter of transactions. The blacklists are “instruments of coercion”. ——————— 20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” 32. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” 32. In the case of Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1989 SC 620 , the Apex Court has taken the view that even if rules do not provide to offer an opportunity of hearing before passing an order of Blacklisting then also opportunity of hearing is necessary before passing the order which leads to civil consequences. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, it has been held that: “4. Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of blacklisting the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. In so far as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order. In that view of the matter, the last portion of the order in so far as it directs blacklisting of the appellant in respect of future contracts, cannot be sustained in law. In the premises, that portion of the order directing that the appellant be placed in the blacklist in respect of future contracts under the Collector is set aside.” In the case of M/s. Southern Painters (Supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: “9. The deletion of the appellant’s name from the list of approved contractors on the ground that there were some vigilance report against it, could only be done consistent with and after the compliance of the principles of natural justice. The deletion of the appellant’s name from the list of approved contractors on the ground that there were some vigilance report against it, could only be done consistent with and after the compliance of the principles of natural justice. That not having been done, it requires to be held that withholding of the tender form from the appellant was not justified. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition.” 33. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Gronsons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 2001 SC 3707 . 34. Following above cited judgments, a Division Bench of this Court while deciding the Smt Rajni Chauhan v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(8) ADJ 56 (DB), has also taken the same view. 35. In view of the settled position since the order of blacklisting as well as recovery has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, we cannot approve the impugned oder to that extent, as for that no separate notice was issued to the petitioner. In view of that, the writ petition succeeds and is partly allowed in the following terms: 1. So far as the future stoppage of work of the petitioner is concerned, we refuse to interfere with that part of the order. 2. So far as the order of blacklisting and recovery is concerned, we quash that portion of the order and direct the respondents to issue separate show-cause/charge-sheet with regard to the order of blacklisting and recovery of the amount, whichever is due to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner thereafter shall file its repy within a further period of four weeks and the concerned Authority shall pass the appropriate order considering the petitioner’s reply within six weeks thereafter. 36. Here, we also take notice of the fact that the Senior Deputy Accountant General of Indian Audit and Account, vide report dated 10th December, 2007, has indicated that the petitioner has not submitted its record before the audit party. 36. Here, we also take notice of the fact that the Senior Deputy Accountant General of Indian Audit and Account, vide report dated 10th December, 2007, has indicated that the petitioner has not submitted its record before the audit party. The various objections raised by the audit party was also not met by the petitioner, and even thereafter, the petitioner was further engaged vide order dated 16.2.2008 by the respondents and continued thereafter till the date of passing of the impugned order. 37. From the perusal of the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate as well as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6, we find that the Authorities are accusing each other for not taking action against the petitioner, for not meeting out the audit objection and getting the contract of supply of the MDM without any inturruption. It is very surprising that how the respondent Authorities in spite of the clear Audit Report has been permitting the petitioner to continue to supply of MDM without there being any formal contract for the same. In paragraph No. 15 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Public Account Committee of the Legislative Assembly of U.P. has also expressed concern in its meeting dated 14th June, 2010. 38. In view of the consistent stand of the respondents that the petitioner’s conduct was not satisfactory, how the petitioner has managed to continue with the work of supply of the MDM. Here we share our views with Chairman, Public Account Committee and direct the State Government to hold a thorough inquiry by an officer of State Government not below the rank of Principal Secretary, and in case it is found that the petitioner did not satisfy the report of audit party and not supplied the MDM according to the norms fixed from time to time by the Government and breached the conditions of the agreement, then the responsibility of the persons concerned, in the process of continuance of petitioner’s work without there being formal contract be also fixed and appropriate action be taken. Here we are also constrained to observe that the various committees constituted for supervision of the distribution of MDM, including the task force meant for supervision, have also failed to discharge their duties and it is only after the intervention of the Public Account Committee of Legislative Assembly, the Authorities have awaken, and took action against the petitioner in hot haste manner by passing the impugned order of blacklisting and recovery without issuing a separate show-cause notice disclosing the intention of blacklisting and recovery. 39. We provide that the entire inquiry be completed by the concerned officer of the State Government as directed by this Court within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, and thereafter, the report be sent to this Court for bringing it on record of this writ petition. 40. We may further observe that in view of the Apex Court’s judgment in People’s Union for Civil Liberty (Supra), although continuous efforts are being made to achieve the directives of the Apex Court, but it needs some thing more to be done with close scrutiny and introspection. —————