In the present case of Subash Mohapatra & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr. on 03. 15.09.2014 heard Mr. R.N. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, who has identified himself as a human rights activist committed to advancing the rights of the most vulnerable members of society, particularly women and children, requests the court’s intervention to prevent the opposite party No. 1, the State of Odisha, from conducting the Concurrent Monitoring Evaluation of the Mid-Day Meal in the State through an organization called the Centre for Youth and Social Development (CYSD), Bhubaneswar.
FACTS: According to the petitioner, the Mid-Day-Meal program in Odisha is plagued by serious fraud, corruption, and mismanagement, much to the disadvantage and risk of underprivileged children, namely those belonging to Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste, as well as residents of isolated rural areas. The petitioner has in the interim approached and filed pending proceedings with the National Human Rights Commission, Odisha Human Rights Commission, Odisha State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, etc. after becoming aware of the widespread illegalities and serious violations of children’s rights. He asserts that in each of these instances, the W.P. (C) No. 16892 of 2014 Dr. Subash Mohapatra Petitioner. State of Odisha & Others. Opposing Parties. forums have taken a variety of actions, including sending out notices, requesting action taken reports, requiring personal appearances, computing and releasing interim compensation, and more. Ayodhyanagar Primary School in Kendrapara, Project Upper Primary School at Gandabahal in Sonepur district, 105 Upper Primary Schools in Dhenkanal district, Bartana UGME School under Bhograi Block in Balasore district, Kaumaara Govt.
Girls High School in Mayurbhanj district, and others are just a few of the institutions mentioned in the petition that are a part of the Mid-Day-Meal Scheme and are located in. He has acknowledged that the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, has noted the complaints he (the petitioner) filed in each of those procedures, and that those proceedings are still continuing. In light of this, the petitioner has criticized the idea of concurrent monitoring and evaluation of mid-day meals in the state, especially when done by the Centre for Youth and Social Development (CYSD), Bhubaneswar.
He claims that this organization is questionable and has the potential to, among other things, stall proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission in New Delhi and to facilitate the misuse of public funds. The aforementioned has been reaffirmed by the petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney.
After speaking with the petitioner’s learned attorney and taking into account the pleaded facts and documents that are annexed to the writ petition and show that the proceedings he started regarding the alleged irregularities and illegalities in the State’s Mid-Day-Meal Program are still pending, among other places, before the National Human Rights Commission, the court was of opinion that the Court should not intervene at this time regarding the issue of Concurrent Monitoring evaluation, it would be appropriate for the petitioner, if so advised, to bring his complaint regarding concurrent monitoring evaluation before the same forum in order to avoid multiple adjudications of the imputations related to the conduct of the mid-day meal program in the State that are currently pending in various forums, including the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, which is in full thereof. The petition is ended with the aforementioned comment. The court stated that it is clear that it has not decided the merits of the matters made in this process for the reasons outlined above.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SNIGDHA DUBEY.