IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1735 of 2011 Baby Devi @ Baby Kumari, Wife of Arbind Kumar, Resident of Village Bangama, P.O. Ramcharitra Maidan, P.S. Harpur, District Munger……………………………………………………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Munger. 4. The District Program Officer, Munger. 5. The Block Development Officer, Tetia Bumber, District Munger. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Tetia Bumber, District Munger. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bangama, Block Tetia Bumber, District Munger. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bangama, Block Tetia Bumber, District Munger. 9. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger..........................Respondents ----------- 2 04.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. From Annexure-13 it appears that the petitioner has represented the Commissioner against the order of the District Programme Officer dated 11.04.2009 rejecting her complaint in terms of the orders of this Court passed in CWJC No. 10307 of 2008. In the order of the District Programme Officer itself it was mentioned that petitioner could file an appeal before the competent authority against the said order. Thus, 2 in sum and substance, representation of the petitioner before the Commissioner was an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same has not been considered by the Commissioner till today and on being asked about consideration of the said application under the Right to Information Act, she was informed that the same has been referred to the District Programme Officer, Munger for necessary action in accordance with law. This is completely non- application of mind by the Commissioner. The representation of the petitioner, which was in sum and substance an appeal, was against the order of the District Programme Officer itself and, therefore, the same could not be referred to the District Programme Officer for any action in the matter. The Commissioner ought to have registered the said application as an appeal and ought to have decided the same in accordance with law after 3 hearing the parties which he has not done. The writ application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner to get registered the said representation of the petitioner dated 19.08.2009 before him, thereafter hear the parties and pass final orders on the same in accordance with law within the time limit fixed under the Guidelines for hearing the appeal in such matters. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)