Mahila Bachhat Samhit Samuh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4773 OF 2019 • Mahila Bachhat Samhit Samuh, Koti, Gram Panchayat Koti, Sector Pendari, Block Wadrafnagar, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, through its presently President, Sarita, wife of Basdev, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Koti, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, 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, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 8.

Khusboo Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh, Pendari, through its President, Smt. Kunti Devi, wife of Gajendra, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Pendari, Block and Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate.

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 Pendari, Block Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj.

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