Disposed

Horil Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Sept 2019CWJC/7949/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the District Magistrate must receive and dispose of the petitioners pending application for release of seized foodgrains within three weeks, noting prior judicial pronouncements on the requirement to exhaust remedies before confiscation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner application for release of foodgrains to be disposed of by District Magistrate within three weeks.

Horil Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7949 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Horil Yadav Son of late Dukhan Yadav, Resident of Village-Ladu Tola, Kedar Bigha, P.S-Mohanpur, District-Gaya.

¶4

Anugrah Singh Son of Late Kailash Singh, Resident of Village-Ladu Tola, Kedar Bigha, P.S-Mohanpur, District-Gaya.

¶5

... ... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Gaya, District-Gaya

¶9

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sherghati, District-Gaya.

¶10

The Officer In-charge, Mohanpur Police Station, District-Gaya

¶11

The Block Supply Officer, Mohanpur, District-Gaya.

¶12

... ... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish Kumar No2, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5 ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 17-09-2019 This writ application has been filed seeking a direction to the District Magistrate, Gaya to release the foodgrains which has been seized in connection with Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 596 of 2018 on 09.09.2018 and a confiscation proceeding being Confiscation Case No. 32 of 2018 has been initiated by the respondent no. 2.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 happened to be P.D.S. Shop Dealer whose premises had been raided by the Block Supply Officer, Mohanpur and from the premises the rice had been seized. It is his submission that the license of the petitioner no. 1 had been placed under

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.7949 of 2019(2) dt.17-09-2019 2/3

¶19

suspension but this Court has vide order dated 07.12.2018 as contained in Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application set aside the order of suspension of the license.

¶20

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner no. 1 has submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Gaya for release of the foodgrains and the same is pending till date. Submission of this effect has been made in Paragraph ‘10’ of the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till date the application for release has not been considered by respondent no. 2.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State-Respondents submits that after the Hon’ble Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Baleshwar Roy Vs. The State of Bihar reported in PLJR 2018 (4) 970 , this Court has taken a consistent view that wherever a confiscation case is pending, the petitioner should first exhaust his remedy seeking release of the foodgrains before the Confiscating Authority.

¶22

It is submitted that in the present case if the petitioners have already filed an application seeking release of foodgrains an appropriate direction may be issued to respondent no. 2 to consider and dispose off the application, if the same has not been done so.

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.7949 of 2019(2) dt.17-09-2019 3/3

¶24

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that in case the application seeking release of the foodgrains has been filed by the petitioners and the same is pending consideration before the District Magistrate, Gaya, the District Magistrate, Gaya (Respondent No. 2) shall consider the same immediately in any case within a period of three weeks from today and shall dispose off the same in accordance with law taking note of the judicial pronouncement on the subject.

¶25

The writ application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶26

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶27

vats/ved

¶28

Horil Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Horil Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Madhwendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vikash Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar

M/s. Baba Enterprises Vs The Punjab National Bank

Anju Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Joydev Dhirendranath Mukherjee Vs The Union of India