IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6690 of 2010
1. MD. ABUL S/O LATE SK. ISH MOHAMMAD R/O VILL.-
NARKATIA, P.S.- PUROSHOTTAMPUR, BLOCK- MAINATAND,
DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
2. ABDUL HAMID ANSARI S/O LATE ALI HUSSAIN ANSARI R/O
VILL.- SAKRAUL, P.S.- INARWA, BLOCK- MAINATAND, DISTT.-
WEST CHAMPARAN
3. KANHAIYA PRASAD S/O LATE MAHADEO SAH R/O VILL.-
BASTHA, P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
4. CHANDRIKA SAH S/O LATE NAGA SAH R/O VILL.- MAINATAND,
P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
5. SURUJ SAH S/O LATE BUDDHAN SAH R/O VILL.- RAMPURWA,
P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
6. JAINABTARA W/O LATE HAKIM MIAN R/O VILL.- RAMPURWA,
P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
7. RAJBANSHI MAHTO S/O LATE KAMAL MAHTO R/O VILL.-
PIRARI, P.S.- INARAWA, BLOCK- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST
CHAMPARAN
8. BINDESHWARI PRASAD S/O LATE BUDHAN SAH R/O VILL.-
RAMPURWA, P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
9. JANARDAN PRASAD S/O LATE DHANIDEYAL MAHTO R/O
VILL.- MARJADAWA, P.S.- PUROSHOTTAMPUR, BLOCK-
MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN
3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MAINATAND, DISTT.-
WEST CHAMPARAN
-----------
2. 04.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and the State.
The petitioners are stated to be P.D.S.
dealers. They were given certain grains for
distribution under the Samakit Gramin Rozgar
Yojana. The distribution was to be done by them
based on permits that may have been issued by the
authorities for the purpose. The grains were given to
2
them in between the year 2001 to 2006. They are
aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2010 directing them
to return the balance amount of food grains or
deposit the costs of the grains at the Above Poverty
Line Level Rate failing which action for cancellation
of their licence shall be taken and an F.I.R. lodged.
Learned counsel submits that the food
grains were distributed as per permits issued from
time to time and the remaining food grains withered
and decayed by long storage as no permits were
issued for distribution with regard to them.
He relies upon an order of this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 16366 of 2009 directing notices of the
present nature to be considered as a show cause
notice, which had to be replied by persons like the
petitioners within six weeks whereafter a final
decision had been directed to be taken afresh.
Learned counsel for the State relies
heavily on the counter affidavit, more particularly
Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the same but is unable
to demonstrate to the Court any material from the
aforesaid Paragraphs of the total amount of food
grains originally given to the petitioners, the amount
of food grains for which permits had been issued, the
amount of food grains which remained undistributed
3
and in respect of which the petitioners may have
remained answerable. Perhaps, if the Block
Development Officer, Mainatand, West Champaran,
had been a little more cautious about the discharge
of his duties and had filed a proper counter affidavit
bringing on record materials that the aforesaid
procedure had been followed notwithstanding which
the petitioners refused to cooperate and furnish
information, rather than confronting the Court with
his own conclusions, the matter could have been
appropriately disposed off today one way or the
other.
In the manner of the counter affidavit
filed, the Court has no option but to direct the
impugned order dated 4.3.2010 to be treated as a
show cause notice.
Let the petitioners file their reply to the
same within six weeks from today when they shall
adequately disclose the amount of food grains
allotted, those for which permits had been issued
and the information given by them for the balance
amount whereafter fresh orders may be passed
within a maximum period of three months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order of
such cause been shown by the petitioner as similarly
4
directed in C.W.J.C. No. 16366 of 2009.
In view of the fact that the impugned
order has been directed to be treated as a show
cause notice, till final adjudication is not done, the
question of any coercive action against the
petitioners thereunder does not arise.
The writ application stands disposed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)