Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.882 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Lalita Devi Wife Of Shri Vivekanand Gurumetta Resident Of At And P.O. - Baysi Via Karjain, Block - Raghopur, District - Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Social Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Social Welfare, Government Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme (I.C.D.S.), Bihar, Patna

4. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa

5. The District Magistrate, Supaul

6. The District Programme Officer, Supaul

7. The Child Development Project Officer, Raghopur, District - Supaul .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. AMRIT ABHIJAT For the Respondent/s : Mr. MADHURESH PRASAD =========================================================== COM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-02-2015 If the Center is to be run for the benefit of the petitioner and officials, that is another issue, but if the Center has been set up for the benefit of expectant mothers and malnourished children who will form the work force for the future, then the allegations which have been noticed and found after inspection only indicates that the beneficiary is somebody else, except the target group. With this kind of serious omissions having been found, which has emerged in the impugned order contained in Annexure-7, passed by the District Magistrate, then this Court will be doing disservice to the object and purpose for which the Centers

Patna High Court CWJC No.882 of 2014 dt.05-02-2015 2 / 2 are being run . No interference is, therefore, warranted with the findings of the District Magistrate.

The alternative argument that the order of the Divisional Commissioner is wrong in holding that the revision cannot lie after 4-11-2011 taking into consideration the date of passing of the order is also misplaced. It is the date of filing of revision by the petitioner, which is after the amended guidelines that debars any further revision in this regard against the order of the Collector. In view of above this point also is bound to fail. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) B.Roy/- U