Ekta Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Gidhpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2444 of 2016

1. Ekta Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Gidhpuri Block Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), Through Its President Sonbati, W/o Yashwant, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Gidhpuri, Block Palari, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District: Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Director, (Women And Child Development Department), Indrawati Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Collector, (Women And Child Development Branch), Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Palari, Block Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

5. District Programme Officer, (Women And Child Development Department), Baloda Bazar, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

7. Laxmi Maa Swa-Sahayata Samuh, Gidhpuri, Block Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) Through Its President Urmila Bai, W/o Lilak, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Gidhpuri, Block Palari, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent

For Petitioner Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 03/10/2016 1.

It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that vide agreement dated 14-12-2015 the petitioner was made entitled to supply ready to eat food material in Sector Gidhpuri, Block Palari for a period of 5 years and the said agreement is still subsisting, yet the impugned order has been passed by the Collector (Women & Child Development Department) Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, granting such right to the respondent No.7 Self Help Group. Learned counsel would submit that till the petitioner's agreement is subsisting, the impugned order amounts to cancellation of its agreement without affording any opportunity of hearing.

2.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall make a representation before the concerned Collector bringing into his notice the above aspect of the matter and any other

ground which may be available to it within a period of one month from today. The concerned Collector shall thereafter constitute a committee as required under clause 11 of the agreement and take decision in the matter within a further period of three months, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3.

It is made clear that till the matter is decided by the Collector, the petitioner shall continue to supply ready to eat food material to 28 Aanganbadi Centers in accordance with the agreement (Annexure - P/2).

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Gowri