^ KIGH COURT W CHHAniSGARH AT BILASRJR W.P.<S) No. 1560 of 2007 Pstitioner Smt. Radha Bai, D/o Mantri Das, Aged about- 22 yeare, R/o Wllage - Sukwapara, Gram Panchayat Mandlatola, Tahsif - Kawardha, Distt. - Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhathsgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare DepartmCTt, D. K .5. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Coilector, Distt- Kabirdham (C.G.). 3. The Additiona! Codector, Distt.-l^blrdham 4. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Devetopment, Block - Bodia, Distt.- Kabirdham(C.G.) 5. TheGram Panchayat, Mandtatoia, Tahsi! Kawardha, Distt.- Kabirdham (C.G.) 6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mandtatola, Tahsi! Kawardha, Distt.- Kabirdham (C.G.) 7. Smt. Rekha Bai, W/o. Ramanuj Safriami, PJo. ViHage Sukwapara, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt.- Kabirdham (C.G.) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice SaSsh K. Agnihotri, J Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for the pefitioner. Miss Sunite Jain, Pane! Lawyer far the rsspondents No. 1 te 4. ORDER (Passed on this 1Stfl day of March, 2007) The fcllowing order of the Court is passsd by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The peffioner has fited this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India chailenging the order dated 30.12.2006 (Annexure P/8). passed by the Additiona! Coltector, Kabirdham in Case No. 45-B/121/2006-07 (Rekha Bai Vs. Radha Bai). 2. Learned counsel appearing for e petitioner submUs that the petitioner was appointsd vide order dated 8.11.2006 (^nnexure P/5) as Anganbadi Worker at village Panchayat Sukwapara, Block - Bodla, District - Kabirdham. Learned counsei further submits that the Additional Cotlector, Kabirdham vide impi^ned order dated 30.12.2006 has canceiisd the appointment ofthe petitioner on fhe basis of the objecSon raised by the respondent No.7. ItJs Thakur furthsr contended that no opporturaty of hearing was given to the petitioner when the petitioner is most affected person by the decision dated 30.12.2(x36, passed by the Additional Collector. 3. On perusal of the papers.it is found that theobjector was heard in presence of the Project Officer but no notice vras given to the petitioner. it is a clear case of violation of the principles of natura! justice, as it is welt settled principle of law that no adverse or prejudicial order be passedagainst a person without affording an opportunity of hearing tosuch pereon. 4. Learned counset appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that on perusal of all the papers, it appears that no notice was afforded to the pefihoner. 5. tn view of the foregoing. as a result, this petition is allowred and the order dated30.12.2(XK isset aside. The matter is remitted back to the Addihonat Coilector, Kabirdham to hear the objsction after ghnng propsr opporfcnity of hsaring to ths petitioner and otfier affected persons, and decide the same in accordance with !av, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of acopyof&tjso^dsr.^toco3ts. Sd/- ». Satish K.Agniliotri ..Jydge .; ,; ^•'