Patna High CourtCWJC/19124/2017disposed

Nilam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-05-08Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19124 of 2017 ====================================================== Nilam Kumari, Wife of Nandan Babu Prasad, resident of Village- Bherihari, P.O.- Sirisya, Khurd, P.S.- Adapur, District- East Champaran, Motihari. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. null null

3. The Director I.C.D.S. (Social Welfare Department) Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Director Welfare, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

5. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, East Champaran, DistrictMotihari.

6. The District Programme Officer, East Champaran, District- Motihari.

7. The Child Development Officer, Adapur, East Champaran, DistrictMotihari.

8. The Mahila Supervisor, Child Develoment Project, East Champaran, District Motihari.

9. Shanti Devi, Wife of Ashok Kr. Prasad, resident of Village- Bherihari, P.O.- Sirisya, Khurd, P.S.- Adapur, District- East Champaran, Motihari. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap -Gp2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 08-05-2018 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.11.2017 passed by the District Programme Officer, East Champaran, Motihari as also the consequential order dated 11.11.2017 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Adapur, East Champaran.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referredto the policy decision contained in letter of the Director, ICDS

Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2017 (2) dt.08-05-2018 2/2 contained in Memo No. 2005 dated 27.4.2013 and has contended that shifting of the ward has been stayed.

In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate representation before the respondent no.5 within a period of two weeks from today bringing on record the documents sought to be relied by her as also the decision of the Director and thereafter the respondent no.5, after considering the material on record and after hearing the parties, shall decide the case of the petitioner within four weeks.

The writ petition is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) BTiwary/- U