Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 580 (ALL)

VINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-02-20

BHARAT BHUSHAN, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2013
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Shri K.N. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Shri Arvind Prasad Yadav appears for Director, Mid Day Meal Authority. Shri Sanjay Maurya appears for District Basic Education Officer, Hathras. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Hathras cancelling the petitioner’s contract for supply of mid-day meal for 39 schools in District Hathras for the year 2012-13. 3. The petitioner is a Society registered as Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) allegedly carrying on business on ‘no profit and no gain basis’. In pursuance to the contract, the work orders were issued by the District Basic Education Officer for supply of cooked food to 39 schools supply under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme under the supervision of Mid Day Meal Authority at Lucknow. 4. Under the agreement the petitioner was required to supply cooked food of good quality in accordance with the standards and menu fixed by the District Basic Education Officer. 5. On 19.9.2012 the District Basic Education Officer sent a notice to the Chairman/Secretary of the petitioner association stating that on 8.9.2012 the mid-day meal supplied was not of prescribed standard. There was insects in the mid-day meal of which the complaint was made and was verified by the children of the schools. The Block Development Officer has made a recommendation that in view of the repeated instances of the quality of food the NGO may not be allowed to distribute the mid-day meal. 6. The petitioner gave a reply on 4.10.2012 to the notice stating that false complaints were made against the petitioner. The mid-day meal is supplied by the petitioner from a central kitchen to 39 schools. No complaint was received about the quality or sub standard from any other schools. He relied upon the certificates issued by the Principals of 4 Junior High Schools in the district where the food was supplied on the same day from the central kitchen. He has also annexed a large number of certificates given by the Principals of other schools verifying the satisfactory supply and the standard of the food. 7. He relied upon the certificates issued by the Principals of 4 Junior High Schools in the district where the food was supplied on the same day from the central kitchen. He has also annexed a large number of certificates given by the Principals of other schools verifying the satisfactory supply and the standard of the food. 7. The District Magistrate has considered the complaints and the explanation given by the petitioner and has found that the Principals of Primary School No. 1 at Sasani and Primary School No. 2 at Sasani had given written complaints that the mid-day meal supplied by the petitioner is not of standard quality. The food had bad smell and was infested with insects. The children had refused to take the foods. The District Magistrate has further directed an enquiry to be made by the Block Development Officer, who visited the Schools at Sasani and verified on 10.9.2012 the complaints on the statements given by the Principals of Sasani Vidyapeeth Inter College supported by the complaint with signatures of the students studying in the school, that the food was not of standard quality and was infested with insects. The District Magistrate has further stated in the order cancelling the contract, that the petitioner was given several warnings to improve the quality of the cooked food. The petitioner, however, did not improve the quality of the cooked food and was deliberately violating the orders. He has recorded specific findings that the food supplied by the petitioner was found to be of sub standard quality, infested with insects and that there is likelihood of any unpleasant incident in the schools. 8. Shri K.N. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the date of complaints, the food was supplied by a central kitchen to 29 schools for about 9000 children. There were no complaints from any other children or institution except the three schools in Sasani. He submits that prior to the show-cause notice no warning was given and that the complaints are alleged to be fictitious were made on mala fides of certain persons. He further submits that the complaints and reports received from the schools have also not been given to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner is serving mid-day meal under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme to 39 schools. The conditions of the contract provide for supplying food of good quality. He further submits that the complaints and reports received from the schools have also not been given to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner is serving mid-day meal under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme to 39 schools. The conditions of the contract provide for supplying food of good quality. In our view, it is not necessary for the District Magistrate to have verified whether any other complaint was received from any other school on the same day as under the contract the verification of even one complaint of sub standard cooked food was sufficient. 10. The contract entered into by the petitioner with the State for supply of mid-day meal is not an ordinary agreement of supply of articles of food. It carries with it the conditions imposing responsibility and accountability of supplying nutritious cooked food of prescribed standard and quality. The supply of cooked food under the Mid Day Meal Scheme should be made carefully and that on every day in every school and at every stage the quality of cooked food supplied to the children must confirm to the standards fixed in the contract. 11. We find that the District Magistrate has not only given an opportunity to show-cause to the petitioner but also verified the standard of food through the Principals of the schools and the Block Development Officer. The children had verified the complaints and they had signed on the document enclosed with the complaint of the Principal of the School. The persons, against whom mala fides have been alleged, have not been named and impleaded. The allegations in any case are vague and do not inspire any confidence to cause an enquiry. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. ——————