Jai Mahamaya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 168 of 2016 • Jai Mahamaya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Through The President Smt. Gendi Bai Jaiswal W/o Shri Rishi Kumar Jaiswal R/o Village Marka, Tah. Kawardha District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Woman & Child Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. The Collector, Kawardha District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)
3. The District Program Officer Woman & Child Development Department District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)
4. Jai Maa Bhawani Mahila Swa- Sahayata Samuh, Through The President Village Doukabandha, Tah. Kawardha District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents And WPC No. 169 Of 2016 • Satya Kabir Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Lohara Through The President Smt. Usha Shrivas W/o Shri Manharan Shrivas, Age About 35 Years, R/o Village Kabirdham Ward No. 12, Tah. Lohara District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner Vs
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Woman & Child Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
2. The Collector, Kawardha District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)
3. The District Program Officer Woman & Child Development Department District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)
4. Jai Maa Chandi Mahila Swa- Sahayata Samuh, Through The President Village Karesara, Tah. Kawardha District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents
For Petitioners :
Shri Ajay Kumar Barik, Advocate For Respondents-State :
Shri Adhiraj Surana, Dy. AG for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 22/01/2016
1. Petitioners have assailed the decision taken by the District Program Officer, Woman and Child Development Department, district Kabirdham, who has granted the contract for supply of ready to eat food material for village Marka and Karesara respectively to respondent No.4.
2. Under the State Government's circular dated 3-12-14 such an order can be appealed before the district Collector. Thus, the petitioners have alternative remedy of moving a representation/appeal before the Collector.
3. In view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy within a period of 30 days from today. On such representation/appeal being filed, the concerned Collector shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, at the earliest, preferably within period of three months from the date of submission.
4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra ashu