Daiya Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 315 of 2020

1. Daiya Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh, Village- Gaina, Sector- Beto, Block- Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, Through Its Presently President- Kumari Sharda Singh Daughter of Mohbal, Aged About- 24 Years, Resident of Village- Gaina, BlockWadraf Nagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Woman And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava 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 (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

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

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

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

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

8. Kudargarhi Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh, Sarna, Through- Its President, Smt. Meena Wife of Ramdhan, Aged About- 50 Years, Resident of Village- Sarna, Block- Wadraf Nagar, District- BalrampurRamanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

For Petitioner :

Mr. Pawan K. Kashyap, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Adv. with Mr.

Ashutosh Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23.01.2020

1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 5 cancelling allotment of distribution of Ready to Eat in various Anganwadi Centre of SectorBeto, Block: Wadraf Nagar, District: Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.).

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 Rahul