WP(C) 4293/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms . R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners claiming themselves to b e social workers have prayed for a direction to the respondents to allot Anganwa di Centres to the respective villages represented by them. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated th us :- 6. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 6 of the petition, t he answering deponent strongly denies that there was arbitrary, unfair and uneq ual distribution of additional AWCs gaon Panchayat wise. The fact is that the newly / additionally sanctioned 198 Angawadi centres have b een sanctioned and allotted by the central government as per the proposal submit ted by the state government on the basis of census of 2001 and public demand. Th e deponent has nothing to do with the allotment and sanction of AWCs. 7. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 7 of the petition, t he deponent denies the same and states that Gathiapara (Dohapara) village is cov ered by Pub-Gathiapara (Dohapara) AWC. Further, the petitioner No.1 family has b een enumerated in the above-mentioned centre showing his family members as benef iciary. As the area is covered by Pub-Gathiapara (Dohapara) AWC, the sanction of additional centre does not arise. 8. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 8 of the petition, t he deponent states that Chaplai Part-II village is covered by Dhanbari AWC and D hanbari-II AWC, the writ petitioner No.2 have been enumerated in Dhanbari AWC sh owing his family members as beneficiary. As the area is covered by Dhanbari AWC and Dhanbari -II AWC, the sanction of additional centre at Chaplai Part-II does not arise. Further, the deponent states that the population of Ambari Pt.-3 village is 4852 as per 2001 census of the district and AWC has been sanctioned as per proposal on the demand made by the local people of the centre area. 9. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the petition, t he deponent states that the village Chaplai Part-I under Khatabari is covered by Suplai AWC and Bagisabari AWC, the writ petitioner No.3 have been enumerated in Suplai AWC showing his family members as beneficiary. As the area is covered by Suplai AWC and Bagisabari AWC, the sanction of additional centre at Chaplai Par t-I does not arise. From the above, what is seen is that the villages represented by the pet itioners are covered by the newly created Anganwadi Centres. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated th at if the petitioners are still aggrieved by non-establishment of additional AWC in respect of the area in question, it will be open for them to submit demand o f AWC centre under the scheme called Anganwadi Centre on demand. In view of the above, Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners su bmits that the writ petition be closed with the liberty to the petitioners to ap proach the appropriate authority. Prayer is allowed. Writ petition stands disposed of.