Dismissed

Nirmala Kumari @ Nirmala Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Jan 2014CWJC/16419/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's rights to run an AIDP center. The court rejected claims of factual errors, upholding findings that the center was neither running nor distributing ration.

What did the court decide?

Writ dismissed upheld appellate authority order terminating petitioner's rights in AIDP scheme.

Nirmala Kumari @ Nirmala Devi Vs The State Of Bihar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16419 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Nirmala Kumari @ Nirmala Devi Wife Of Sri Raghunath Ram Resident Of Village- Gahila, P.S.- Morawa, Dist.- Samastipur

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Patna 3. The Director, I.C.D.S. Bihar, Indira Bhawan, Patna 4. The District Collector, Samastipur 5. The C.D.P.O. Morwa, Samastipur 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Maricha, Patori, Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, AC to SC 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER

¶4

This is second visit of the petitioner before this High Court. In the earlier writ application an opportunity was given to the petitioner to establish her bona fide before the concerned authority. An opportunity of hearing to explain her position was given and the conclusion has been reached against the petitioner by authorities on a detailed consideration since on inspection of the centre, fact against the petitioner was established that the centre was neither running nor distribution of take home ration was being done.

¶5

7 03-01-2014

¶6

Annexure- 10 is the order passed by the appellate authority. The Court has gone through the consideration and the explanation offered by the petitioner, which has been taken note of

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.16419 of 2012 (7) dt.03-01-2014

¶8

2/2

¶9

by the Collector, Samastipur. He has also given a categorical finding, which was sought to be shown as a false. The defence was created with the object of overcoming the allegation, which the petitioner has failed to convincingly succeed.

¶10

With a consideration of the kind, which emerges from Annexure- 10, the Court is not satisfied with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there are serious errors of fact or law, which makes the order vulnerable.

¶11

The Court is satisfied that it is a case of serious omission committed by the petitioner, which has the effect of not only defeating the object and purpose for which such centres are being run but such persons who have no sense of responsibility are also not required to run the centre. No interference, therefore, is warranted with the impugned orders in question.

¶12

Writ is dismissed.

¶13

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶14

Nirmala Kumari @ Nirmala Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Kumari @ Nirmala Devi v. The State Of Bihar 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

Munita Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Reyazuddin and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Runa Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sarita Devi @ Savita Devi and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bibhuti Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shankar Lal and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.