- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners is permitted to delete petitioner no.1 from the array of the parties to the writ petition. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners? and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
(2.) THE petitioners' who are 21 in number have come up in the writ petition challenging the orders passed by the District Magistrate dated 4th August, 2012 as well as? order? dated 21st August, 2012 issued by the Block Development Officer directing for recovering the amount from the Ex-Pradhans of different Gram Panchayats of District Chandauli as conversion of cost of midday meal. The petitioners' case in the writ petition is that the notice was issued on 6.9.2012 to several? the then Pradhans of the Gram Panchayat including the petitioners in which the Pradhans were directed to deposit the amount as determined by the aforesaid notice failing which recovery shall be made as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners' case is that after receiving? notice, applications were given by the petitioners to the District Magistrate as well as to the District Basic Education Officer asking the relevant details for? giving reply to the said notice. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that detailed calculations were given to all the Ex-Pradhans regarding conversion cost and without deciding the representations submitted by the petitioners, a general order has been issued by the District Magistrate on 4th August, 2012 for effecting recovery against all the Pradhans. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several Pradhans? of the Gram Panchayat had earlier come to this Court? by filing writ petitions? which were disposed of by this Court? directing the District Magistrate?? to consider their representations. Reference has been made to the order dated 4.9.2012? passed in Writ- C. No. 44248 of 2012 (Smt. Suman? (Ex-Pradhan) and others Vs. State of U.P. and others).
(3.) FROM the? perusal of the order of the District Magistrate dated 4th August, 2012 as well as the order of the Block Development Officer, it does not appear? that the order has been passed? considering any individual grievances rather the said orders are general orders directing for effecting the recovery. The petitioners by filing supplementary affidavit? has brought on record the detailed representations, which were submitted? by the petitioners after receiving the notice dated 6.9.2012, annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view? that the individual claims submitted by the petitioners is to be considered? for effecting the recovery of conversion cost from them.;