IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 17772 of 2014 JAI SADGURU SWA SHAYATASAMOOH GUDGAWAN AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Javed Ansari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Kamal Singh Baghel - Advocate for the State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed praying the following reliefs:

"(i) To quash the impugned order dated 30/10/2014 (Annex.P-9) passed by Respondent No.3 and further be pleased to direct the competent authority i.e. Collector to consider the claim of the petitioner and same be decided as per guideline issued by State Government in the interest of justice.

(ii) To grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner."

Today, when the matter is taken up, counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for adjournment on the ground that arguing counsel is not available.

However, counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the return filed by the State which read as under:

"5. That, at the outset, it is essential here to mention that in fact the instant petition has been rendered as infructuous due to efflux of time for the reason that the new policy/circular in respect of allotment of midday meal has came into force w.e.f. 05/08/2020 and at present the same is applicable. Under Clause 2.2.1 (Ka) it is specifically mentioned that the distribution of midday meal shall be allotted to one Samoohin respect of School/Schools situated in one premises under Clause 2.2.1 (Gha) it is mentioned that as far as possible the one Samooh shall not be entrusted with the work of supply of Midday meal for more than one village. Meaning thereby, as per the new policy the petitioners are even otherwise, not entitled for supply of midday meal in respect of Schools which are situated in different villages. A copy of the circular dated05/08/2020 is marked as ANNEXURE-R/1.

6. That it is appropriate to mention that the petitioner No. 1 was entrusted with the work of distribution of midday meal in respect of four schools namely Primary School Gondgawan, Primary School Sanjay Nagar, Education Guarantee School, Haliyakala and Middle School Gondgawan .On coming into force the policy of rationalization policy, the work of Distribution of Midday Meal in respect of two schools have been withdrawn and same were handed over to Maa Durga Swa Sahayta Samooh, Gondgawan. In respect of petitioner No. 2 it is relevant here to mention that the same was executing the wok of distribution of midday meal in two schools at that point of time. Out of those two schools, one school has been withdrawn from respondent No. 2 and the work of distribution of midday meal in respect of that school was allotted to the School Management Committee. It is further submitted that before withdrawal of school from the petitioner No. 2, due enquiry was conducted on the complaint received by the answering respondents and on the said enquiry it has been found that the petitioner No. 2 has stopped| supply of midday meal w.e.f. 08/12/2012. The respondent No. 3 has records and relevant policies has came to the conclusion that action taken considered each and every aspect of the matter and after perusal of entire by the subordinate authority is strictly in accordance with the policy. The respondent No. 3 has also afforded due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and they appeared personally before the respondent No. 3, meaning thereby, principles of natural justice has duly been followed before passing the impugned order. In fact, for proper implementation of rationalization scheme out of four, two schools are rightly withdrawn from the petitioner No. 1 and same does not call for any interference.

7. That it is appropriate to mention here that, on several occasions the Hon’ble High Court