Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Smt. Maya Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 15 March, 2016

Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                                 CWP No.
                                                      No. 4296 of 2015
                                                 Date of decision: 15.3.2016.




                                                                      .

     Smt. Maya Devi                                                  .....Petitioner
                      Versus
     State of Himachal Pradesh & others  ....Respondents





     ___________________________________________________
      Coram:
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice




                                            of
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan,
                                          Chauhan, Judge
     Whether approved for reporting?1
     _________________________________________
     For the petitioner :
                  rt                     Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.

     For the respondents:                Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate

                                         General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr.
                                         Romesh      Verma,      Additional
                                         Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K.
                                         Verma, Deputy Advocate General,
                                         for    the    respondents,     for



                                         respondents No. 1 to 3.

                                         Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate,




                                         for respondent No. 4.





     Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ of mandamus, commanding respondents No. 3 & 4 to comply with the order dated 3rd June, 2014 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No. 2 and further commanding respondent No. 2 to shift Anganwari Centre Kotla in Government Primary School, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:54:49 :::HCHP -2-

Kotla and Anganwari Centre, Dadog from Government Primary School, Dadog to any other suitable place in .

Village Dadog.

2. It is a moot question -whether this writ petition is maintainable? We leave this question open.

3. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed reply, of whereas respondent No. 4 did not file the same.

4. rt It is apt to reproduce para 5 of the preliminary submissions and para-6 of the reply, on merits, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 herein:

"5. That the respondent No. 4 failed to shift the Anganwari Centre Dadog due to dilapidated condition of the building of Yuvak Mandal Bhawan which is unsafe for the beneficiaries coupled with dangers due to monkeys menace in the area.

Moreover no other suitable accommodation is available at Dadog to locate the Anganwari Centre. This fact is also confirmed from the letter written by Anganwardi Worker, Dadog to Respondent No. 2 in this regard.

Also Anganwadi Worker has informed that the Centre will be shifted as and when suitable accommodation is available. Copy of the same is annexed as R-1.

6. That the contents of the para are admitted to the extent that the Anganwari Centre, Kotla is currently ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:54:49 :::HCHP -3- being operationalized from the place in private accommodation nearby Government Primary School, Kotla, as the centre of Anganwari feeder .

area, however the Anganwari Centre, Dadog cannot be shifted to the Yuvak Mandal Bhawan as the condition of the building is not safe for running the Anganwari Centre due to dilapidated condition of building and the inhabitancy of the monkeys in the area. Since the issue of the of safety of the children is of utmost concern therefore, it would not be prudent and judicious to shift the rt Anganwari Centre to the Yuvak Mandal Bhawan. Moreover due to unwillingness on the part of the people to rent out the accommodation for amount of Rs. 200/- as monthly rent the Respondent No. 2 could not shift the Anganwari Centre, Dadog to the new place. This fact is also confirmed from the letter written by Anganwadi Worker, Dadog to Respondent No. 2 in this regard. Also Anganwadi Worker has informed that the Centre will be shifted as and when suitable accommodation is available. Copy of the same is annexed as R-1."

5. It is the duty of the State to do the needful.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.


     March 15, 2016                     (Tarlok Singh
                                                Singh Chauhan)
                                                      Chauhan)
      (hemlata)                                Judge.




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:54:49 :::HCHP