Disposed

Mithilesh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Nov 2013CWJC/5896/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging non-supply of tractors under a government scheme. The Court observed petitioners admitted receiving tractors on loan over ten years ago but delayed repayment by filing notice in 2007. No steps were taken to repay. The Court disposed of the matter conditionally. Petitioners were granted liberty to offer refund within a month.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioners to approach the Corporation within one month to refund the price of the tractor with interest. Upon acceptance, corporation to give reasonable time to liquidate dues. Otherwise,

Mithilesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5896 of 2007

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Mithilesh Kumar Sharma Son of Late Balbhadra Sharma, resident of Khutti Hasaili, Police Station Krityanand Nagar, District Purnia

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate at Purnia.

¶7

The Bihar State Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation, Head Office at 4^th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna through its Managing Director.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Purnia.

¶9

The District Welfare Officer, Purnia.

¶10

The Managing Director, Bihar State Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation, at 4^th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna

¶11

The Officer in Charge, Loan Recovery Section of Bihar State Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation at 4^th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.

¶12

Vijay Agricultural Implements, Pir Muhani, Police Station Kadamkuan, District Patna through its Proprietor.

¶13

.... .... Respondents

¶14

======================================================

¶15

With

¶16

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5944 of 2007

¶17

======================================================

¶18

Akhilesh Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma, resident of Village Khutti Haseli, Police Station Krityanand Nagar, District Purnia

¶19

.... .... Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate at Purnia.

¶22

The Bihar State Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation, Head Office at 4^th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna through its Managing Director.

¶23

The District Magistrate, Purnia.

¶24

The District Welfare Officer, Purnia.

¶25

The Managing Director, Bihar State Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation, at 4^th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna

¶26

The Officer in Charge, Loan Recovery Section of Bihar State Backward Classes, Finance and Development Corporation at 4^th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.

¶27

M/S Vijay Agricultural Implements, Pir Muhani, Police Station Kadamkuan, District Patna through its Proprietor.

¶28

.... .... Respondents

¶29

======================================================

¶30

Appearance :

¶31

(In CWJC No.5896 of 2007)

¶32

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha

¶33

Mr. Ravindra Kr.Choudhary Mr. R.N.Poddar Mr. Rupesh Ranjan, Advocates

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.5896 of 2007 (6) dt.25-11-2013

¶35

2/4

¶36

For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to AAG 8

¶37

(In CWJC No.5944 of 2007)

¶38

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha

¶39

Mr. Rupesh Ranjan Mr. R.N.Poddar Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to AAG 8

¶40

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶41

6 25-11-2013

¶42

From the records it is apparent that petitioners had entered into litigation before this Court only in order to avoid repayment of price of the tractors given to them on loan by the Bihar State Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Corporation”) under the Scheme of the Government.

¶43

Annexure-D with the counter affidavit of respondent nos.2, 5 and 6, which is a letter of the petitioners, shows that petitioners have admitted to have received the tractor as loan to them. In the letter they have accepted that they have arranged trailer, cultivator and equipment etc. and, therefore, they have requested the Welfare Officer that the amount of loan sanctioned for the purpose may be refunded to the Corporation. They have also requested that pass-book may be issued to them so that they may be in a position to repay the loan. The letter of the petitioners is of 2002. However, it does not appear that thereafter they have

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.5896 of 2007 (6) dt.25-11-2013

¶45

3/4

¶46

taken any further step to show their bonafide and made any attempt to repay loan of the Corporation. On the other hand, they have filed these writ applications in 2007 i.e. more than 5 years, after raising a grievance that the tractor and cultivators etc. had not been supplied to them and the sale letter was not issued to them and insurance was not done and, therefore they were unable to pay back loan of the Corporation.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that tractor and cultivator etc. could not be supplied to the petitioners as supply had not been made to the authorities of the Corporation and State. Their stand is that petitioners were supplied with invoices and other documents in respect of tractors received by them which fact is being disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that the District Magistrate denied supply of these letters, which is supported with annexures.

¶48

This Court is not required to go into all these disputes. This fact remains admitted that the tractors were received by the petitioners in the form of loan which they have kept with themselves for more than ten years. There is nothing on record that they have taken any step for refund of the price of the tractor to the Corporation together with interest as admissible on loan.

¶49

Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the

¶50

Patna High Court CWJC No.5896 of 2007 (6) dt.25-11-2013

¶51

4/4

¶52

Corporation is ready to deduct the amount of the trailer, cultivator etc. and is ready to take back only price of the tractor together with interest.

¶53

In the circumstances, both the writ applications are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Corporation within a month from today to refund the price of the tractor together with up-to-date interest, as admissible upon the same. If the offer of the petitioners is accepted by the Corporation, it shall give reasonable time to the petitioners to liquidate the entire dues of the Corporation. However, in case petitioners do not submit such an offer to the Corporation within the said period, the Corporation and other authorities shall be at liberty to recover entire dues with interest from the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶54

B.T/-

¶55

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

Mithilesh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Kumar Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mangal Bazar Vyaparik Varg Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Mathur Vs the Bihar State Credit and Inves

Navin Kumar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ram Bachchan Singh Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Akhilesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.