Mahamayha Swa Sahayta Samuh, Sahanpur, Patora, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3416 of 2021 • Mahamaya Swa Sahayta Samuh, Sahanpur, Patora, Project - Lundra, Through - Its President, Smt. Rampati, W/o Shri Bale Sadinya, Aged About - 40 Years, Caste - Gond, R/o Village - Sahanpur, Tehsil - Lundra, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. District Programming Officer, Woman And Child Development Department, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh

3. District Woman Development Officer, Woman And Child Development Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

4. The General Manager, District Industries And Business Center, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

5. District Food Officer, Food Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

6. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Ashish Tiwari, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 23/08/20

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner group, which was supplying ready to eat food material, has participated in the allocation

along with different self help group in selection process, however, during such selection process though the petitioner was having the infrastructure and other requisite documents, however, no marks were given to it. Consequently, the petitioner had made an application Annexure P-8 on 29.07.2021 that the marks so given to the petitioner is arbitrary and be reconsidered as per the objection raised. He would further submit that before deciding such objection in an objective manner, the permission to allot ready to eat food material may not be awarded to any third person or otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel, on instructions, would submit that the state authorities are seriously considering the objection made by the petitioner (Annexure P-8) and without considering their objection, no list of allocation shall be finalized.

4. In view of such submission made by learned State counsel, it is expected that the grievance raised by the petitioner by way of objection would be considered in its proper perspective and without any prejudice and impartiality. It is ordered accordingly.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu