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.
(J. N. Singh, J.)
BT