Rajendra Dubey Vs The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4178 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Rajendra Dubey Son of Paltan Dubey Resident of Sakra Bazid, Police Station- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Rai Path, R. Block, Road No. 2, Patna through its Managing Director.

¶7

The Managing Director The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Rai Path, R. Block, Road No. 2, Patna.

¶8

The Deputy General Manager Transport, The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Rai Path, R. Block, Road No. 2, Patna.

¶9

The General Manager Public Distribution, The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Rai Path, R. Block, Road No. 2, Patna.

¶10

The Deputy General Manager (Modernization) The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Rai Path, R. Block, Road No. 2, Patna.

¶11

The District Manager Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Muzaffarpur.

¶12

The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶13

The District Magistrate Muzaffarpur.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chittrankan Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.Raza Ahmad (AAG 5) : Md. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG 5 For BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Utkar Jha Utpal, Advocate ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-02-2024

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.

¶18

The present writ application has been filed for quashing the letter no. 10604 dated 16.10.2019, issued under the

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.4178 of 2020 dt.19-02-2024 2/8

¶20

signature of the Deputy General Manager (Modernization), Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”), by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit penalty to the tune of 5 times the price of the food grains transported by the petitioner through vehicle no. WB 57A-8684 from NRPA, Muzaffarpur to TPDS, Sahebganj on the ground that during transportation, the vehicle went off-line.

¶21

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the Memo no. 70 dated 16.01.2020, issued by the District Manager, Muzaffarpur, by which, an amount of Rs. 31,29,582/- has been deducted/ recovered from the transportation bill of the petitioner in the month of September, 2019.

¶22

The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ application is that the petitioner was working as Transporter-cum- Handling Agent (Main) in the district of Muzaffarpur, consequent to an agreement dated 06.05.2017. The agreement was valid for 03 years, which was extended by different letter. National Food Security Act was enacted in the year 2013, which came into force on 01.02.2014 in the State of Bihar, after which an effort was made to transport the food grains through GPS-enabled vehicles, for which, certain

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.4178 of 2020 dt.19-02-2024 3/8

¶24

guidelines were issued vide Memo dated 14.09.2016, two of them are as follows :-

¶25

(a) The full amount of Transport and Handling bill will be paid to the Transport Agent only if a transporter has transported 80% or more food grains while his vehicle was active on Online GPS Tracking.

¶26

(b) From 01.04.2016, Transport and Handling bill should be paid only on the basis of pencentage of online active GPS.

¶27

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that 500 bags of wheat was loaded at Muzaffarpur on the truck in question on 20.04.2019, which was to be unloaded at Sahebganj. He further submits that at the time, when the food grains was loaded in the truck at F.C.I. Narayanpur Depot, the GPS system installed in the vehicle was on but when the vehicle was coming out from the depot, the GPS went off. Thereafter, the representative of the petitioner immediately stopped the vehicle and informed the District Manager as well as IT Manager, Muzaffarpur and subsequently, after repairing the GPS system, the food grains were unloaded at the destination i.e. Sahebganj and an acknowledgment receipt dated 21.04.2019 was given by the Assistant Godown Manager at Sahebganj. The Deputy General Manager (Modernization), vide his letter dated

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.4178 of 2020 dt.19-02-2024 4/8

¶29

22.04.2019, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation regarding the reasons for the vehicle GPS going offline at 8:20 pm after being dispatched from depot at 6:19 pm within 24 hours.

¶30

In pursuance to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner, vide letter dated 25.04.2019 submitted his reply, in which he has explained the reason of vehicle showing offline during transportation. Petitioner stated that from vehicle history report, during transportation, the vehicle was shown online 11 times and offline 14 times, which was either due to fault in GPS or due to network and internet problem. The reply to the show cause submitted by the petitioner was forwarded by the District Manager, Muzaffarpur vide his letter no. 618 dated 29.04.2019 to the Deputy General Manager (Modernization) with the counter affidavit to accept the show cause reply of the petitioner, stating therein that upon inquiry, it was found that all 500 bags of wheat were unloaded safely at Sahebganj.

¶31

Learned Senior counsel further submits that without considering the show cause reply or the recommendation of the District Manager, the Deputy General Manager (Modernization), vide impugned letter, imposed a penalty of an amount to the tune of Rs. 31,29,582/- from the

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.4178 of 2020 dt.19-02-2024 5/8

¶33

transportation bill of the petitioner, submitted in September, 2019. Learned counsel pointed out Annexure P/16 and submits that M.S.D. Telematics Pvt. Ltd.; a Company which monitor the GPS System, conducted an inquiry as to the possible reasons for the vehicle went offline during transportation and upon inquiry, it has been found that signal strength of the Airtel network was weak at the place, where vehicle went offline and subsequently after moving ahead, the vehicle automatically came online. He also submits that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and in an arbitrary manner without giving any reason.

¶34

Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation has taken action as per agreement between the parties under Clauses 13 and 13.3 and the guideline dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure-P/6).

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record and the impugned order. It is an admitted position that GPS system was installed in the vehicle of the petitioner by a Company appointed by the Corporation. On the date, when the food grains was being transported from the vehicle of the petitioner, the vehicle was going online and offline at various positions. The Company,

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.4178 of 2020 dt.19-02-2024 6/8

¶37

which has been monitoring the GPS concerned, after inquiry, has found that due to weak signal strength, the vehicle of the petitioner went offline.

¶38

It is not disputed that the food grains, which were loaded at Muzaffarpur was unloaded at the destination at Sahebganj, no pilferage of the food grains has been found by the Corporation or its authority. The reply to show cause submitted by the petitioner to the District Manager was forwarded to the Deputy General Manager (Modernization) with a recommendation that the show cause of the petitioner can been accepted. From perusal of the impugned letter imposing penalty, it appears that one line order has been passed by the concerned authority merely stating that show cause of the petitioner is not acceptable. No reason has been assigned by the Authority in the impugned order imposing onerous penalty, which is 5 times of the price of the food grain loaded, which comes to around Rs. 31 lacs an odd amount.

¶39

In para 7 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2007(10) SCC- 712 (Union of India & others v. Jai Prakash Singh and another), there is observation of Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, [1971] 1 All E.R. 1148, in which it has been observed

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.4178 of 2020 dt.19-02-2024 7/8

¶41

that even in respect of administrative order, the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974) LCR

¶42

120 : 1974 IRL P 56, it was observed as follows :

¶43

“ Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. the "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. ”

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.4178 of 2020 dt.19-02-2024 8/8

¶45

Considering the aforesaid discussion, on facts as well as on law, the inevitable conclusion is that the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 does not spell any reason and also does not show consideration of reply to the show cause, submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, in my opinion, the order impugned reflects non-application of mind, is not sustainable, as such, the same is quashed. The respondent authority is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 31,29,582/-, deducted from the transportation bill of the petitioner, within a period of two months.

¶46

The present writ application stands allowed on the aforesaid terms.

¶47

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶48

rinkee/-

¶49

AFR/NAFR	AFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	21.02.2024
Transmission Date	NA

Rajendra Dubey v. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Dubey v. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Sahni @ Kamlesh Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Bechani Khatoon @ Mumtazm Vs The State of Bihar

Sairun Nesha Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Nizamuddin Vs The State of Bihar

M/S Deepak Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Bihar

Shree Chand @ Shree Chand Madhan Vs The Indian Bank