Ramashish Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (23). For the Corporation : Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

¶23

5 15-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

The present Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of

¶25

the petitioners above named for issuance of an appropriate writ, order and direction for;

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.13310 of 2025(5) dt.15-04-2026 2/4

¶27

“(i) A Mandamus

¶28

Commanding the Competent Authority i.e. S.D.O. Rosera, Samastipur to eliminate & blot out the wrongly and excess quantity of food grains i.e about 62 qtl. & 35 k.g of wheat & about 93 qtl. & 51 k.g of Rice has falsely been entered & uploaded on to the petitioner No. 1 (Ramashish Ray) having License No. 314/2016, E-Pos Machine No 122100300178 & also to eliminate & blot out the wrongly and excess quantity of food grains i.e about 99 qtl. & 8 kg of wheat & about 185 qtl. & 16 kg of Rice has falsely been entered & uploaded on to the petitioner No. 2 (Amardeep Kumar) having License No. 01/2019, E- Pos Machine No. 122100300513 which is still showing in the machine but said food grains in question has neither been supplied to the petitioner nor the petitioner has never received the same.

¶29

(ii) A mandamus commanding further may kindly be directed to the competent authority to update the petitioners EPOS Machine as per the stock received by the petitioner and distribute the same amongst the beneficiaries & also continue the monthly allotment as per the consumer tagged with the shop of the petitioner as before.”

¶30

In the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent-

¶31

State at paragraph Nos. 14, 15, 20, 24 and 27, it is stated as

¶32

under:-

¶33

“ 14. That in reply of the statement made in Para No. 12 of the writ

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.13310 of 2025(5) dt.15-04-2026 3/4

¶35

petition it is submitted that report has already been sent by the SDO Rosera to the District Supply Officer Samastipur for making correction in the stock with respect to Petitioner No. 1.

¶36

15. That in reply of the statement made in Para No. 13 of the writ petition it is submitted that due to technical fault discrepancies in stock arose between stock displayed on e-POS Machine & Physical stock.

¶37

20. That in reply of the statement made in Para No. 19 & 20 of the writ petition it is submitted that the answering respondents are taking appropriate measure to redress the grievance of the Petitioner No. 1.

¶38

24. That in reply of the statement made in Para No. 24 of the writ petition it is submitted that in the matter of petitioner no. 1, report has already been sent for making correction in the stock whereas in the matter of petitioner no. 2 it is submitted that after verification of e- POS Machine no discrepancies was found by the concerned authority.

¶39

27. That in reply of the statement made in Para No. 27 of the writ petition it is submitted that the answering respondents are taking all measure for making correction in the stock which was occurred due to technical fault.”

¶40

Having regard to the above, the present writ petition

¶41

is disposed of directing the official respondents to rectify the discrepancies in the ePOS machine as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The authority shall duly take into

¶42

Patna High Court CWJC No.13310 of 2025(5) dt.15-04-2026 4/4

¶43

consideration the Page Nos. 19 and 20 of the counter-affidavit.

¶44