LAWS(MAD)-1991-1-2

MADURAI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MADURAI Vs. DAIZY EBEENSAZAR ANNAMMAL SECRETARY OF THE SCHOOL MID DAY MEALS CENTRE FOR THE TWO SCHOOLS VIZ RAJA DHANALAKSHMI MIDDLE SCHOOL AND L V BALUSAMI IYER

Decided On January 22, 1991
MADURAI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MADURAI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER MADURAI Appellant
V/S
DAIZY EBEENSAZAR ANNAMMAL SECRETARY OF THE SCHOOL MID DAY MEALS CENTRE FOR THE TWO SCHOOLS VIZ RAJA DHANALAKSHMI MIDDLE SCHOOL AND L V BALUSAMI IYER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant-Madurai City Municipal corporation is the appellant.

(2.) THE facts of the case are simple. THE plaintiff is the secretary of the Mid-day Meals for two schools viz. , Raja Dhanalakshmi Middle School and L. V. Baluswami Iyer Middle School ,Madurai. THE two schools were providing mid-day meals to a total pupils for 200 days in a year. Towards the expenses the Government was contributing rate of 6 Paise per pupil till 30. 9. 1974 and the balance expenses were met with the donations. Later the Government passed Government Order No. 1804 dated 21. 10. 1974 per which the Government would contribute 10 Paise per pupil and the local body defendant-Madurai City Municipal Corporation shall contribute a minimum of 5 paise 1. 10. 1974 and thenceforth there shall be no public contribution. Accordingly the Government was making its contribution from 1. 10. 1974 but the defendant Corporation failed to any contribution. On account of this failure of the defendants the plaintiff was obliged borrow amounts to meet the expenditure. THE plaintiff has also been sending regularly the defendant quarterly accounts stating the expenses of mid-day meal feeding 1. 10. 1974. THE plaintiff also sent several notices demanding payment at the rate of 5 per pupil but all in vain. THE plaintiff finally sent a registered notice on 7. 3. 1977 through lawyer which also had no effect. THEre is due from the defendant a sum of Rs. 14,256 for period from 1. 10. 1974 to 30. 9. 1977. THErefore the suit.

(3.) THE concerned Government order is undisputa-bly not a statutory rule or order. shown that under any statutory provision this order was passed. This being the case order is merely passed by the Government under its executive power. As between Government and the defendant-local body the defendant must obey the order and if to obey, the Government will take appropriate steps against it.