IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3092 of 2010 "BIHAR SEVA SANSTHAN", Nawada through its Secretary, Dr. Smt. Saurabh Suman, Wife of Rajendra Prasad, resident of Village-Sewa Nagar, P.O.- Gonawan, P.S.-Sadar Nawada, District-Nawada. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Managing Director, Woman Development Corporation, Bihar, Patna, 2nd Floor Indira Bhawan, R.C. Singh Path, Beli Road, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Nawada. 4. The District Programme, Officer, Nawada. 5. The Special Work Officer, Nawada. 6. The Additional Collector, Nawada. 7. Assistant Director, Social Secretary, Nawada. 8. The Assistant Project Officer, D.R.D.A. -Respondents. ----------- 02 29.03.2010 The petitioner is a non-government voluntary organization inter alia running a Woman’s Short Stay Home. The State Government through the department of Woman Development Corporation took a decision to establish short stay homes in districts where destitute and other helpless woman could take shelter for short time. The district administration was required to select such organizations which were to run such establishments on payments/grants received from the governments. Petitioner applied and was duly selected. While petitioner was running the said institution at Nawada, it appears from Annexure-5 that allegedly some oral complaint was received by the District Magistrate, Nawada from the Woman Development Corporation, Patna about mismanagement in petitioner’s organization. Without any specific allegation, he constituted a three man committee to examine into that making surprise inspection. One of the members - 2 - in the committee was Smt. Aarati Sinha, who was Assistant Project Officer, Nawada. Petitioner objected that this Aarati Sinha should be removed from the inspecting team as her husband is himself running a parallel NGO and, as such, she always intended to disturb the working of petitioner’s organization. Without considering thereof, the petitioner’s short stay home for woman was inspected and a report submitted. Pursuant to the said report, a show cause was issued to the petitioner, which petitioner replied while the matter was pending. Petitioner learnt that substantial amount of grant, which comes from the State Government, be paid to the petitioner and cheques ready for payment but were not being paid, petitioner again protested. This time it has now learnt that the Collector, Nawada has recommended to the Woman Development Corporation to grant him permission to settle the same with another person. Petitioner’s first grievance is that he has not been finally terminated. He has not been paid for the past work done, though grants have been received from the Corporation. His further grievance is that the selection is totally arbitrary, inasmuch as, neither any public notice nor selection was at all done, and it is only to oblige certain people all this is being done. In my view, as petitioner’s selection had been approved by the Woman Development Corporation and it is for implementation of their programme that they had been selected, petitioner must immediately approach the Woman Development - 3 - Corporation in the matter, the Managing Director of the said Corporation would enquire into the matter and take appropriate decision after hearing the parties including the decision with regard to payment of money due to the petitioner. Such enquiry and decisions must be made within a period of one month from the date of filing of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. Till a final decision is taken by the Corporation to terminate petitioner’s services, petitioner’s services would continue. Petitioner would continue to provide services inasmuch as these are services benefits for the public and there cannot be vacuum left in the matter, because if petitioner’s unit is closed and not other unit is duly selected, then interregnum where would destitute women go. The continuity must be maintained. Till final decision of the Corporation, the district authorities would not disturb the petitioner in any manner. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)