Minimata Mahila Evam Sahayata Samuh Kodwa v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2505 of 2016 • Minimata Mahila Evam Sahayata Samuh Kodwa, Block Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), Through Its President Chameli Banjare, W/o Kamta Prasad Banjare, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Kodwa, Block Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, (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 OfÏcer, Integrated Child Development Project, Palari, Block Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

5. District Programme OfÏcer, ( Women And Child Development Department), Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

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

7. Jai Durga Swa- Sahayata Samuh, Sandi, Block Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) Through Its President Dulari Potar W/o Nandkumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Sandi, Block Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioners Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. UNS Deo, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Order On Board 5/10/2016

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 Sandi, 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 BazarBhatapara, 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 26 Aanganbadi Centers in accordance with the agreement (Annexure - P/2).

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna