Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3592 (ALL)

Vinod Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-11-19

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT The relief which has been sought is a direction to the Collector and District Magistrate, Firozabad to complete an inquiry as directed by him on 28 June 2014 in respect of the supply of mid-day meals to primary and upper primary students of district Firozabad and for taking appropriate action. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent who was appointed as the agency for the supply of the mid-day meals to primary and upper primary students in district Firozabad for the period between July 2007 to May 2010 challenged an advertisement which was issued in 2009 by the District Basic Education Officer. An interim order was issued in a writ petition filed by the fourth respondent on 21 August 2009 which was extended on 21 October 2009 in pursuance of which the fourth respondent continued to supply mid-day meals even after the term had expired. Payment was made to the fourth respondent. On 28 June 2014, the Collector and District Magistrate constituted an inquiry committee. The order of the Collector was challenged in a writ petition filed by the fourth respondent which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 15 July 2014. Both the writ petitions (Writ- C No. 43117 of 2009 & Writ Petition- C No. 34417 of 2014) filed by the fourth respondent were dismissed by a Division Bench in terms of the following observations: "However, what is of concern is the manner in which, acting ostensibly in pursuance of the interim order dated 21 October 2009, the work continued to be awarded to the petitioner for a period of five years. All that the Division Bench had observed in its interim order dated 21 August 2009 was that till the next date which was 28 August 2009, the contract for Mid-Day Meals should not be finalised in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14 August 2009. Nothing prevented the District Basic Education Officer during these five long years from either moving the Division Bench for clarifying or vacating the interim order or issuing a fresh advertisement so that proper selections could be made. The District Collector has, in the circumstance, instituted an inquiry. Absolutely no fault can be found with the order constituting an inquiry committee and, in our opinion, it will be most inappropriate for this Court to prevent a due inquiry being conducted. The District Collector has, in the circumstance, instituted an inquiry. Absolutely no fault can be found with the order constituting an inquiry committee and, in our opinion, it will be most inappropriate for this Court to prevent a due inquiry being conducted. The fact that the order of the District Collector was preceded allegedly by a representation to the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad by a political leader would not be indicative of the fact that the District Collector has acted with any mala fides. The District Collector has acted within his jurisdiction in ordering an inquiry into the circumstances in which one particular party has been allotted work for a period of five years in this manner. In the circumstance, we are of the view that no case for interference is made out in either of the writ petitions. We, accordingly, vacate the ad-interim order dated 21 August 2009. The District Basic Education Officer, we clarify, would now be at liberty to make proper arrangements for the supply of Mid-Day Meals by issuing a fresh advertisement and inviting applications so that a proper selection can be made. Both the writ petitions shall, in the circumstances, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 2. In this background when the present petition came up, we had directed the learned Standing Counsel to take instructions on the status of the inquiry which was ordered by the Collector and District Magistrate. The learned Standing Counsel has placed on the record his instructions which indicate that a five member inquiry committee was constituted. The inquiry is still proceeding. In our view, the ends of justice would be met by directing that the inquiry be completed expeditiously and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We may clarify that since the only direction which has been issued in these proceedings is to expedite the inquiry, it has not become necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent and we clarify that the inquiry shall be completed after affording all the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.