IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9781 of 2010 1. RUKHSANA KHATOON W/O ABDUL QUDDUS R/O DAULATPUR, GRAM PANCHAYAT PACHAULI, P.S.- PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, DISTT.- ARARIA 4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER, BLOCK PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 6. WASIMA KHATOON W/O NOT KNOWN MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ PECHAULI, P.O. BALUA DEODHI, DISTT.- ARARIA ----------- 2 22.04.2011 Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Collector, Araria (Annexure-1) on her appeal, by which the same was rejected and the order of the District Programme Officer cancelling her engagement was upheld. From the order, it appears that the engagement of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the inspecting authority had found the centre closed and it was reported that the centre was not running there at all and shifted somewhere else. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to ground nos.4, 5 and 6 of his memo of appeal, annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application, from which it appears that the petitioner had taken a specific plea before 2 the Appellate Authority that, as per the decision of the Aam Sabha, the centre no.110 was shifted from Parwakhari to Daulatpur Tola on 30.12.2007 and since then the centre is functioning in the Daulatpur Tola which was already informed to the higher authorities. The plea is that the centre was shifted under the valid resolution of the Aam Sabha. If the plea of the petitioner in his memo of appeal was factually correct, obviously, the B.D.O., Palasi who held a surprise inspection of the centre had visited a wrong place. Since this plea was raised in the memo of appeal, this fact was required to be ascertained by the Appellate Authority before coming to any decision in respect of disengagement of petitioner. This writ application was filed on 28.06.2010 with service of two copies of the same in the office of learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed. The order of the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure-1, does not show that the said exercise was done. The order therefore, suffers from non-application of 3 mind. As a result, the said order of the Collector, as contained in Annexure-1, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Collector to re-hear the matter in the light of the specific plea taken by the petitioner in her memo of appeal, get an enquiry held and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)