Disposed

Baby Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Jun 2016CWJC/19343/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna disposed of a writ petition by the headmistress aggrieved by an order to deposit Rs. 60,000 for excess claims under the Mid Day Meal scheme. The court directed a 50% deposit as a condition to make a representation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner must deposit at least 50% of the directed amount to make a representation, after which the District Magistrate will take appropriate action.

Baby Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19343 of 2013

¶3

=========================================================== 1. Baby Kumari Wife Of Bipin Kumar Resident Of Village - Bajaul, P.S. Wazirganj, Distt. - Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through Its Principal Secretary Education, Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya 3. The Director, Mid - Day - Meal, Bihar, Patna 4. The Incharge Officer, Mid - Day - Meal, Distt. - Gaya 5. The Block Resources Person, Wazirganj 6. The District Resources Person, Gaya 7. The Block Education Officer, Wazirganj, Gaya .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amar Nath Deo, S.C.-26

¶4

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-06-2016

¶5

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and A.C. to S.C.-26 for the State. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4 to 7.

¶6

Petitioner is Headmistress of Primary School, Kusumhar Mahua Panchayat, Gaya and is aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the respondent District Magistrate on the basis of inspection report (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). On 23.07.2013, the school of the petitioner was inspected by the Incharge Officer, Mid Day Meal, Gaya along with other officers and it was found that only 137 students were on the rolls of the school. The petitioner was claiming articles under the Mid Day Meal for 184

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.19343 of 2013 dt.21-06-2016

¶8

2/3

¶9

students. On the basis of report submitted by the Inspection Team, the District Magistrate passed the order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in the relevant account and also directing administrative action against her. The Court is not aware as to whether any departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding was initiated pursuant to the aforesaid order.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 170 students had attended the classes in the morning and thereafter some of them left the school dropping leave application. Various circumstances have been cited by her to indicate that the shortage in the number of students can adequately be explained by her if an opportunity was given to do so. The legality of the impugned order is questioned on that basis.

¶11

In the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that a team of the officers inspected the school on the relevant date and found only 137 students on the rolls of the school who were present whereas the petitioner had clandestinely shown 184 students in the school and was obtaining articles under the Mid Day Meal for distribution amongst the students. It is stated that an opportunity of making a representation against the impugned order be granted to the petitioner which will provide an opportunity to her to explain the circumstances under which the short fall in the number of students

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.19343 of 2013 dt.21-06-2016

¶13

3/3

¶14

was found by the Inspecting Team.

¶15

Let the petitioner first deposit at least 50 % of the amount as directed under the impugned order (Annexure-4) whereafter she will be at liberty to make a representation against the order directing deposit of a sum of Rs. 60,000/- by the respondent District Magistrate. If deposit of 50 % of the amount as directed under Annexure-4 is made and a representation is filed, I am sure, the respondent District Magistrate will consider the same and take appropriate decision and/or pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶16

The writ application is disposed of.

¶17

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶18

Pankaj/-

¶19

Baby Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Kumari 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

Md. Shamim @ Pal Babu and Anr. Vs Moulvi Nishat Ahmad and Anr.

Gopal Prasad Tekriwal @ Gopal Prasad Sultania Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Archana Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sant Ram Pandit Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Nalanda Tubewell Boring Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Udgar Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.