Rajeev Mahila Swayam Sahayta Samuh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4764 OF 2019 • Rajeev Mahila Swayam Sahayta Samuh, Toni, Sector Kundikala, Block Rajpur, Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, through its presently President, Smt. Kaushilya Paikra, wife of Alicharan Paikra, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Toni, Block Rajpur, 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 (CG) 4.

The Collector (Woman and Child Development Branch), BalrampurRamanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5.

The District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Development Department, Composite District Office Building, 1st Floor, District BalrampurRamanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 6.

Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Balrampur, District BalrampurRamanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 7.

The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

8.

Mahamaya Swawlambi Samuh, Khodro, Sector Kundlikala, through its President, Smt. Sushila, wife of Abhay Gupta, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Khodri, Block Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/01/2020 1.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by respondent no.5 cancelling allotment of distribution of ready to eat food in the Anganwadi Centre of Sector Kundikala, Block Rajpur, District BalrampurRamanujganj. 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 present writ petition at this juncture.

4.

Accordingly, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Collector by way of preferring first appeal, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ JUDGE