Shiwani Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 110 of 2020 Shiwani Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh Village Balangi, Sector Balangi, Block Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, Through Its Presently President Smt. Chitra Devi Wife Of Premchand Kesri, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Balangi, Block Wadraf Nagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Woman And Child Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Commissioner, Woman And Child Development Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

4. The Collector (Woman And Child Development Branch), Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

5. The District Programme Officer, Woman And Child Development Department, Composite District Office Building, 1st Floor, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

6. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

7. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

8. Mahila Bachhat Swa Sahayta Samuh Tuguva Through Its President, Shanti Devi, Wife Of Dayal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Tuguva,

Block Wadraf Nagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State :

Mr. P. Acharya, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 13.01.2020 1.

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 5 whereby the respondent No.8 has been selected as the agency for allotment of distribution of Ready to Eat materials in the Anganwadi Centre at Balangi Sector under District: Balrampur.

2.

Perusal of the record would show that the scheme under which the project comes, itself has a mechanism of an appeal challenging the order passed by the District Programme Officer. The first appeal lies to the Collector as per clause 8.1 of the guidelines governing the field. 3.

Given the facts that the scheme has a mechanism to challenge the order of the District Programme Officer, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this juncture.

4.

Accordingly, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Collector by way of preferring first appeal, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai