Balaji Mahila Mandal Samiti v. Union Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 944 of 2016 • Balaji Mahila Mandal Samiti, through Sangita Verma, D/o Late Krishna Kumar Verma, aged about 41 years, Secretary Balaji Mahila Mandal Samiti, R/o Kedarpur Trikon Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India, through Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Women & Child Development, Mantralaya, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Women & Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

3. Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG)

4. District Programmer, Women & Child Development Department, District Surguja (CG) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Shri N.K. Vyas, ASG.

For Respondent /State: Shri S. Majid Ali, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 18/11/2016

1. The petitioner is running 'Swadhar Home' for which it receives grant from the Central Government under the Swadhar Greh Scheme for Women in difficult circumstances issued by the Government of India on 4.10.2011 (part of Annexure-R/1). The petitioner has received such

grant till the year 2014-15, however, since thereafter the petitioner has not been allowed grant for the year 2015-16 and in the meanwhile, the petitioner has been served with the impugned order dated 19.3.2016 whereby the District Programme Officer (DPO) acting under the approval of the Collector has cancelled the continuation of petitioner's Swadhar Greh with a direction to the women inmates of the petitioner's Swadhar Greh to be transferred to Government Nari Niketan.

2. Based on the inspection carried out on 15.1.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been found to comply with the terms of the scheme and performance of the staff was also found good, therefore, there is absolutely no justification for passing the impugned order. It is further argued that the DPO has passed the impugned order on irrelevant and extraneous considerations which are not germane to the terms of the scheme.

3. Learned State Counsel would submit that since after passing of the order (Annexure-P/1), the DPO has recommended to the State Government vide Annexure-R/2 dated 12.4.2016 for not continuing the operation of the petitioner's Swadhar Greh, however, no decision has yet been taken by the Central Government, who is the competent authority to release grant for running the Swadhar Greh. He would also submit that the order (Annexure-P/1) has not been given effect to because no orders have been passed by the competent authority after recommendations (Annexure-R/2). It is further argued that before passing the order (Annexure-P/1) the petitioner has been afforded opportunity of hearing and upon satisfaction that the petitioner's Swadhar Greh had committed several irregularities in running the Swadhar Greh.

4. Since recommendations of the DPO have already been made to the State Government who in turn shall send the papers to concerned department of the Central Government for passing final order in the

matter, this Court would refrain from making any comment on the merits of the issue because it may affect the merits of either of the parties when the matter would be evaluated by the concerned department of the Central Government for considering the matter.

5. Since the Central Government is yet to decide the matter, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, it is disposed of with a direction that the concerned department of the Central Government shall take decision in the matter considering the entire gamut of circumstances and the documents including the order passed by the DPO as also the inspection report. The DPO shall also send inspection report to the State Government who in turn shall send the papers to the Central Government for its consideration when the matter is finally decided.

6. Let the Central Government take decision in the matter at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of communication from the State Government. The State Government shall send all the papers to the Central Government, if not already sent, within a period of one month from today and thereafter the Central Government shall take decision.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve