I_N____THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION (S) No. f 0 LK £) OF 2007 PETITIONER VERSUS RE§PONDENTS 1. G E , @ Smt. Usha Bai Banjare W/o Sitaram Banjare, aged about District KABIRDHAM C.G State Through Womean and Development DKS Bhawan Raipur, C.G. of Chhattisgarh, The Secretaly Child Department, The Collector, Kabirdham, Kabirdham C.G. , The Additional Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham C.G. District j l Project Officer, Integrated Woman and Child DevelopmentDepartment, District Pandariya, Kabirdham C.G. Janapad Kabirdham, Executive Officer, Janapad Panchayat Through Chief 3O years, R/o Village Pandatarai, Janapad 'Panchayat Pandariya, @@ Kabirdham C.G WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF APPROPRIATE ?’ WRIT / ORDER/DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORAI /MANDAMUS ETC. V) K7 egg HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wri'r Pefi'l’ien (5) No. 1049 of 2007 Pefi?ioner Smf. Usha Bai Bmjar-e Versus Respandenfs Sfafe of €hhaf‘i'isgar’h & aihers §ingie Bench: Hon’He Mr. G'usfice 5nfish K. Agi'iihofr‘i. Presem': Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocafe for The peTiTioner. Ms. Ajay Dwivadi, Panel Lawyer for- The Sfafe. O R D E R (Passed on 23" Day of Fabruary, 2§07) The fsilowing order of the Cour? was §assec§ by 5aiish K. Agnihaft‘i, 5. Learned munse! appearing far The peti‘i‘ioner submii‘s fha? the required candifian far appaimmenf af me Aimganbwé Worker €s ‘i‘haf the caadidafes shoxdd be named m fhe vofer list. Secand‘y, a finding fa ‘ihe effem‘ fhaf i'he respandem‘ No. ? is a deseried Iady is n6? based mi facfs mid caii‘irary affidavii's have been filed. On rewing of ‘ihz arder dafed 28-12-2606 (Annexure P—9) passed by fhe Addi‘i‘ionai Coiiecfar, Kabirdham, if appears ihm‘ fhe Addifional Caliecfor has no? cansider-ed The aiiega‘iicn of The pefifianer fa the exienf fhaf 1112 mme of fhe r-espcriéent Na. 7 was no? in The voter list as required uncier fhe Amganbadi $cheme. The oiher’ grounds Thai fha respamiem' Na. ? was no? a deser’fed lady has alsa mi been considered Gad fhere are canfrary affidavifs. Thus, fhe findings af the Addifionai Calieci‘or, Kabirdham is perverse, in View of fhe facfs fha‘r fhe Addiiianai Caiiec‘ror has m? considered ali fhe allegofions before recording fhe finding in favour of The ff respohdenf No. 7. kg Learned caunsei appearing for ’rhe STG're/respondznfs agrees wifh fhe submissions made by fhe learned counsel for fhe petifioner. The order da‘ted 28-12-2006 (Annexure P—9) passad by The AdditionaE Coliem‘cr, Kabirdham is sai=aside and fhe mm‘fer is ramifi‘ed back fa fhe Addifionai CaHector, Kabireham for considering The ailegm‘iens made by fhe pefifioner, after giving due notice fa bofh “the parfies and To fake a fresh decisien in accordance with fhe Aanganbadi Scheme and iaw. Thus, ihe wri‘i pefificn is aiiowed. Na order as To cosfs. I 1 A i ' Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri s’ Judge 5ubhash