[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bayju Mata Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Gor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5811
1 WP-1625-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1625 of 2026
BAYJU MATA MAHILA SWA SAHAYATA SAMUH GOR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla, Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State.
ORDER
This petition has filed assailing the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by
the respondent No.5, whereby the work of distribution of mid-day meals
allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled.
2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the order
impugned is a non-speaking order for which on 20.01.2026, the State
counsel was granted time to seek instructions in the matter in respect to
passing of non-speaking order by the respondent No.5.
3. Despite repeated orders being passed from this Court to various
authorities directing them not to pass the blanket order or a non-speaking
orders highlighting the judgments passed by the Supreme Court particularly
in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs Masood Ahmed Khan
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 wherein it was specifically held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that even the quasi judicial authorities are required to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5811
2 WP-1625-2026
pass reasoned order because reasons are heartbeat of the orders.
4. Today the counsel appearing for the State on instructions has
uploaded a document i.e. a letter dated 20.01.2026 issued by the Sub
Divisional Officer pointing out the facts which culminated into passing of
the orders. However, the aforesaid facts which have been pointed out by the
letter are not a part and parcel of the impugned order dated 07.01.2026,
therefore, the said order is a non-speaking order which has compelled the
petitioner to file this petition before this Court challenging the said order.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and
another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others
reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 has categorically held that the reasons cannot
be substituted into the orders passed by the authorities by way of affidavit or
subsequent orders. The authorities are well aware of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1978 in the case of Mohinder Singh
Gill (supra) as well as the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
year 2010 in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (supra) but despite of the
same, a non speaking order was passed by the authorities. The same is in
violation of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time
to time as well as by this Court on various occasions. The passing of non-
speaking orders by the authorities are forcing the litigants to approach the
Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging such non-speaking orders.
6. Counsel appearing for the State has fairly admitted that it is a non
speaking order and a prayer is made to remand back the matter to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5811
3 WP-1625-2026
authorities for reconsideration. It is assured that the speaking will be passed
by the authorities within the stipulated time frame.
7. His prayer is accepted.
8. As the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 is a non-speaking order
as already observed hereinabove, the same is hereby set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the respondent No.5 to pass a fresh order after giving
audience to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner has
compelled to approach this Court by filing a writ petition challenging a non-
speaking order, this Court deem it appropriate to impose a cost of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) on the respondent No.5 to be paid to the
petitioner within a period of 7 days from today, which shall not be refunded
back from the public exchequer.
10. Compliance report pertaining to the aforesaid be placed before the
Court for perusal.
11. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
KPS
