ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by which the petitioner has challenged the expression of interest issued by District Programme Officer, Women and Child Welfare Department, Sagar.

2. A solitary ground has been raised by the petitioner that as per guidelines dated 05.05.2021, the expression of interest has to be issued by the committee constituted as per Clause 1.2.2 whereas impugned expression of interest has been issued by the District Programme Officer, Women and Child Welfare Department, Bhopal. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 15.03.2024 had directed the respondents to file their response.

3. It is submitted by Smt. Swati Aseem George that as per clause 1.2.2, the Collector and District Programme Officer are members of the committee. There is no provision regarding Coram of committee and since the impugned expression of interest has been issued by District Programme Officer after due approval by the Collector, therefore the expression of interest has been issued by the competent authority. It is further submitted that it is nowhere mentioned in the guidelines dated 05.05.2021 that there has to be a resolution of the empowered committee and under these circumstances, 3 W.P.No.4571/2024 it is submitted that the expression of interest which has been issued by the District Programme Officer is in accordance with law.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

5. Clause 1.2.2 of Guidelines dated 05.05.2021 reads as under:- “1-2-2 Lo&lgkrk lewgksa ds p;u gsrq lfefr%& 1& v/;{k&dysDVj vFkok muds }kjk ukekafdr çfrfuf/k 2& lnL; & vk;qä & uxj ikfyd fuxe /eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh/ux ikfydk ifj"kn ,oa uxj iapk;r

3& lnL; lfpo fcyk dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh 4& lnL; & dks"kky; vf/kdkjh 5& lnL; & ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ftyk 'kgjh fodkl vfHkdj.k

6& lnL; & lacaf/kr ifj;kstuk ds ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh”

6. Thus, it is clear that for the selection of the Swa Sahayta Samooh, a committee of 6 persons shall be constituted comprising of Collector or his nominated representative, Commissioner, Municpal Corporation/Municipal Council/ Nagar Palika Parishad and Nagar Panchayat, District Programme Officer, Treasury Officer, Project Officer, Jila Shahar Vikas Abhikaran and Project Officer of the concerning project as its member and District Programme Officer is the ex-officio Secretary.

7. Clause 1.2.3.1 reads as under:- “1-2-3 Lo&lgkrk lewg dk p;u dh çfØ;k%& 1-2-3-1 lfefr }kjk ftys esa mijksä Lo&lgkrk lewgksa ls lkoZtfud lwpuk ckfgj tkjh dj dk;Z dh vfHk:fp dh tkosxhA”

8. From the plain reading of clause 1.2.3.1, it is clear that the expression of interest shall be issued by the Committee. It is the case of respondents that by letter dated 21.02.2024, 28.02.2024, 07.03.2024, 4 W.P.No.4571/2024 12.03.2024 request was made to the members of the committee to attend meeting.

9. It is suffice to clarify that in this case, it is not the contention of the petitioner that the committee is not in existence, therefore existence of the committee is not the center point of dispute but the only question is as to whether meeting of the committee was ever held or not.

10. It is fairly conceded by counsel for State that no meeting of the committee was ever held and the impugned expression of interest was issued by District Programme Officer/Ex-officio Secretary on the approval of the Collector.

11. Accordingly, the counsel for respondents was directed to clarify as to whether Collector and District Programme Officer can be said to be the committee, specifically when the meeting of the committee was not held at all.

12. It is submitted by counsel for respondent that since there is no provision with regard to the presence of minimum number of members (Coram), therefore, even two members can take a decision.

13. The question of Coram would arise only if the meeting is held. Once, the meeting of committ