Disposed

Baleshwar Pd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Sept 2012CWJC/17350/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice requiring deposit of funds under threat of FIR. The court directed the Block Development Officer to hold an enquiry, consider representations, provide a hearing opportunity, and refrain from coercive action pending final decision. No legal provision was specifically cited.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondent Block Development Officer for enquiry, consideration of representation, hearing, and restraint from coercive action pending final decision.

Baleshwar Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17350 of 2012

¶2

	====================================================== Baleshwar Prasad, son of Nageshwar Prasad, resident of village Kutru Chak Panchayat Budhwara, Police Station Gobindpur, District Nawada. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Director Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Nawada, District Nawada. 4. District Programme Officer, District Nawada. 5. Block Development Officer, Gobindpur Block, District Nawada. 6. Child Development Project Officer, Govindpur, District Nawada. 7. Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Govindpur, District Nawada. .... .... Respondents ======================================================
	Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Nagendra Sharma, AC to GP8 ======================================================
	CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORALORDER
2	18-09-2012 Petitioner is aggrieved by a notice dated 17.08.2012 issued
	by the Child Development Project Officer, Govindpur, Nawada,
	as contained in Annexure-2, by which petitioner and other
	contractors have been directed to deposit certain amount in the
	account of the Bank failing which an F.I.R. is to be instituted
	against them.
	Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that work was executed and completed by the petitioner in 2001. He submits that
	since his work was found satisfactory, the entire amount of the
	bill was paid to him in 2002 itself. Since then there is no
	complaint in respect of quality of work executed by him.
	However, only on the basis of audit report of the Accountant

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.17350 of 2012 (2) dt.18-09-2012

¶4

2 / 2

¶5

General of 2005-2006, petitioner has been given notice to deposit the said amount. Prior to this direction to deposit the said amount, neither he has been given any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him.

¶6

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a representation before the Child Development Project Officer, as contained in Annexure-3 and a representation before the Block Development Officer, as contained in Annexure4, for due enquiry in the matter before taking any further action.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondents may be directed to consider representations of the petitioner and hold an appropriate enquiry and take a decision in the matter.

¶8

This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Block Development Officer, Govindpur to hold appropriate enquiry in the matter, give an opportunity to the petitioner, if necessary, hear him and thereafter take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner, till a final decision is taken by the Block Development Officer, Govindpur, as directed above.

¶9

B.T/-

¶10

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

Baleshwar Pd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baleshwar Pd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Pd. Yadav Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

M/s Pawansut Construction Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Punam Devi Vs the Chief G.M.,Local H.O.,SBIand

Ganesh Prasad Singh Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Asif Hussain Khan Vs The Union Of India and Ors.