Partly allowed

Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2014WPC/1900/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of a writ petition regarding the recovery of funds for food supplies. The Court restrained the petitioner from civil suit and directed the Sub Divisional Officer to determine the payable amount. Partly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner restrained from filing civil suit. Respondents directed to pay Rs.1,98,669/- or部分内容 found payable by SDO within three months.

Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs State Of… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

8'E—w•;.,.. », ©'Hsygi.yiJS^^S^ff

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

W.P. (CtNO.]-°)0-t) OF 2013

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh, Hardi, P.S. Nawagarh, Block Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.), Through its President Smt. <£" Krishna Tarrdan w/o Sushil Kumar, aged about 36^'years, R/o village Hardi, P.S. Nai9?agarh, Block Nawagarh, Civil & Revenue District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDENTS 1.

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, Manatralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

¶10

Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶11

¶12

Sub Divisional Officer (R), Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶13

¶14

Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.).

¶15

¶16

Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh, Ghursena, Through its President Smt. Sukwaro Bai w/o LachchlT.iram., aged about 40 years, R/o village Ghursena, P.S. Nandghat, Block Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶17

¶18

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE

¶19

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶20

y^ .qraTcFT, ^r(1y'i<i, teray

¶21

U-^ i^J> i^o.y^<yD/;-3

¶22

U-^ •WTST WW^"""'!"<K1W9

¶23

Wl. 20

¶24

	aiT^?r 1ragi (.f^^	fi)
3Tl^'?r n R-fi* OTiaP tW skHi+	FRiiwgfeian^r	"Wlfepa-IV^'fif^S^R^K ^r 3if;'iif ai^Tf
	SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra 15-07-14	Mohaji Shrivastava, J. ll
	Shri F.S.Khare, counsel Ms. Smiti Dubey, Panel 1 to4.	for the petitioner/s. Lawyer for the State / respondents
	Shri Vinay Pandey, cour]	sel for respondent No.5.
	By this petition, the pet and validity of order dated 23 respondents have informed th the pendency of the petition, supply of 'ready to eatfood'. Learned counsel for th eat food' was granted under Learned counsel for the ofthe food supplied to the Sta
	/ State, the petitioner is entitlecj Learned State counsel in essence of recovery of petitioner is to approach the a Considering the subm parties, taking into consideral petitioner and the State and f no specific reason has been '	l to payment of Rs.1,98,669/-. ^ubmits that the petitioner's claim is jnoney, for which, remedy of the ppellate authority or to file a suit. ssion of learned counsel for the

¶25

¶26

.".ft—^XPHC—78

¶27

3-'E-cT .qRfi^r, ^^y'i<i', JiicTO'y

¶28

krt> (<' ) 1^0. /^ i?T3 //^3 •WT^]T %'iTi-^^-^•"•"•••/••••••^-^••••••••••••••••••••••"••••••'•••^2()

¶29

OT^T'-RTO (^yi^y)

¶30

s^s svR-ii* WT3 SSl *Mi<ti		qiPlf?Pft:T ll'kll'iffS^ ^S.P.^Tt ^^S?,^sv^
Deepti	regarding non-payment, it woj shall consider petitioner's claii	eatfood' already supplied by i The Sub-Divisional Offi petitioner's claim and whatevej shall be payable to the petitj period of three months from order. However, iffor any rea part, is not found payable communicate in writing to the open for the petitioner to talj available to the petitioner/ soc The petition is accordin^ 'S

Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bankat Singh Rajput Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Raman Bihari Kannoje Vs Regional Transport Authority

State of Chhattisgarh Vs the Board of Revenue and Ors.

Vijay Budhia Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Singh Vs Regional Transport Authority and Anr.

Dilesh Kumar Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.