1 CGHC010291122020 2026:CGHC:40762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4 of 2021 1 - Kasturba Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Baitari, Through- Its President Smt. Divya Nayak, W/o Shri Samaru Nayak, Aged About 50 Years, Post- Chattigirola, Block- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur. 2 - The District Programme Officer Women And Child Development Department, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) 3 - Project Officer Women And Child Development Department, District- Mahasamund 4 - Kasturba Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Khapridih, Block- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : None For State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/09/2026 1. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2026.09.22 11:57:32 +0530 2 “a.This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondent authorities for quashing the impugned order, dt. 17/09/2020 Annexure P/1. b. May kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for grant of permission to supply the ready to eat diet material in the Sector - Baitari, Block - Saraipali, District – Mahasamund. c. May kindly be pleased to allow the compensation to the petitioner SwaSahayataSamooh and any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper. d. Cost of petition may be allowed.” 2. Learned State counsel raises an objection to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2020 passed by the District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development Department, the petitioner has simultaneously pursued two proceedings, one before this Court and another before the District Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.). He submits that the proceedings challenging the said order are already pending before the concerned Collector and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. 3. Considering the aforesaid facts, since the petitioner has already preferred an Appeal before the concerned District Collector against the order dated 17.09.2020, which is pending adjudication, the same remedy cannot be 3 granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has to pursue the Appeal already preferred by him against the said order. 4. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of Appeal already preferred by him before the concerned Collector. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Priyanka