Allowed

Suresh Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Jan 2023CWJC/4612/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order directing a P.D.S. dealer to return S.G.R.Y. food-grains within two days. The court held the order was unreasonable and unsustainable due to lack of verification regarding requisition and lifting of grains, setting it aside and remanding the matter to ascertain what amount was due due to restitution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Block Development Officer to ascertain dues, requisition status, and notify petitioner before passing a final order.

Suresh Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4612 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Suresh Chaudhary Son of Hari Chaudhary resident of Village- Siyani, P.S.Karande, District- Sheikhpura.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sheikhpura.

¶9

The Block Development Officer Block- Chewada, District- Sheikhpura.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶15

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶16

3 09-01-2023

¶17

Heard Ms. Sushmita Mishra, learned Advocate

¶18

for the petitioner and Mr. Kunal Tiwary, learned counsel for the State

¶19

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Block Development Officer, Chewada in the District of Sheikhpura who has directed the petitioner to

¶20

deposit the entire food-grains given to him for being disbursed to labourers under the S.G.R.Y. (Sampoorna

¶21

Grameen Rozgar Yojana) within two days of the receipt

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.4612 of 2020(3) dt.09-01-2023 2/5

¶23

of the notice.

¶24

The petitioner objects to such unilateral decision

¶25

of the Block Development Officer who is said to be acting purportedly under the opinion given by the Hon’ble Justice Uday Sinha Commission of inquiry with respect to this matter.

¶26

As has been explained to us, P.D.S. Dealers were chosen as agencies to provide Government foodgrains to the workers employed under S.G.R.Y. Since the petitioner is only a dealer under the P.D.S. scheme, such identification of labourers and their requirement be paid could only have been known by the petitioner or any other dealer of the same ilk through the requisition furnished to such dealers by the officers executing the S.G.R.Y.

¶27

True it is that the objection of most of the dealers with respect to the food-grains having been spoilt because of passage of time and its non-disbursal was not accepted by the Hon’ble Justice Uday Sinha

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.4612 of 2020(3) dt.09-01-2023 3/5

¶29

Commission for the reason that even if the food-grains had been spoilt with the passage of time, that was required to be notified and returned or a permission sought from the authorities for destroying the same. In the present case, the challenge is not to the return of the spoilt food-grains but whether the petitioner is at all entitled to return the same.

¶30

The petitioner was supposed to appear before Hon’ble Justice Uday Sinha Commission but, it has been factually asserted by him that his case was not heard before the Commission which could be because of his non-appearance before the Commission.

¶31

In any view of the matter, it is required to be verified as to whether any requisition by the concerned authority for giving food-grains to the workers employed under S.G.R.Y. was given and whether the food-grains meant to be given to workers under S.G.R.Y. was lifted by the petitioner in his capacity as a dealer. Without ascertaining that, and only taking shelter of the report of

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.4612 of 2020(3) dt.09-01-2023 4/5

¶33

the Hon’ble Commission, it has been urged, the

¶34

petitioner could not have been asked to return the foodgrains.

¶35

We find that no such exercise has been made and in a most unreasonable manner, the petitioner, as a

¶36

dealer, has been asked to return the food-grains within a period of two days.

¶37

The order dated 14.02.2019 is not only

¶38

unintelligible but unreasonable and unsustainable too.

¶39

For this reason, the order is set aside.

¶40

The matter is remanded to the Block

¶41

Development Officer, Chewada to find out and ascertain

¶42

as to what amount is due against the petitioner in his capacity as a dealer for having restituted the workers employed under S.G.R.Y. and whether he was notified

¶43

by way of requisition or otherwise to make good/available such food-grains to the workers of the S.G.R.Y.

¶44

In the absence of this finding, even after the

¶45

Patna High Court CWJC No.4612 of 2020(3) dt.09-01-2023 5/5

¶46

report of the Hon’ble Commission of Justice Uday Sinha (Retired), such an order as impugned in this petition cannot be passed.

¶47

The Block Development Officer shall, after ascertaining all this, put the petitioner on notice for explaining his cause and thereafter shall pass a final order which then only shall become executable.

¶48

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Block Development Officer, Chewada for the needful.

¶49

The petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶50

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶51

( Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶52

Rishi.Kr/-

¶53