Bij Gram Uthpadak Chilra Through ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2989 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
                     L.P.A. No. 265 of 2020

      Bij Gram Uthpadak Chilra through its Secretary, Shankar Poddar aged
      about 58 years, son of Late Baldeo Poddar, resident of Bij Uthpadak
      Chilra, Bhaktiyadih, P.O. Chilra, P.S. Saraiyahat, District-Dumka
                                                   ...      ...      Appellant
                                Versus
   1. State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Agriculture
      Department, Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-
      Ranchi
   2. Director of Agriculture Department, State of Jharkhand, Project
      Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
   3. Joint Agriculture Director, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District-
      Dumka
   4. District Agriculture Officer, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District-
      Dumka                                  ...        ...        Respondents
                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate Ms. Ruhi Dubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Soumya S. Pandey, AC to AAG-I

---

th Order No. 05/Dated: 18 August 2023

Raising a claim for money and challenging the orders passed by the officers of the Agriculture Department including its Director, Bij Gram Uthpadak Chilra approached the writ Court in W.P. (C) No. 5817 of 2019.

2. The writ Court referred to the judgment in Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Atmanand Singh and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 433 to fortify its opinion that a writ petition with such prayers was not maintainable and, accordingly, did not look into the dispute raised by the parties. This further appears that at the time when the order dated 27th May 2020 was passed by the writ Court the money which according to the respondents was due from the writ petitioner was not fortified/realized. The writ Court has therefore issued a direction to the Director of Agriculture Department to take a decision on the representation made by the writ petitioner against the impugned order/decision of the Department.

3. The writ Court has held as under:

"9. Thus, from the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the petitioner has been provided sufficient opportunity to explain the allegations before issuing the impugned letters. In the case in hand, both the parties have

raised question of facts in support of their respective stand which cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, no final decision has yet been taken on the issue of forfeiture of the due amount of the petitioner, rather the bill of the petitioner has been kept on hold till determination of loss caused to the government due to alleged irregularity committed by the petitioner. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit dated 27th May, 2020 filed by the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has submitted its common reply to the letter no.1022 dated 16th October, 2019 and letter no.1110 dated 16th November, 2019 with all supporting documents relating to its grievances before the respondent no.2 on 11th December, 2019, however, as per the knowledge of the petitioner, no decision has yet been taken."

4. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant has however drawn our attention to Annexure-5 at page 96 of the paper book to submit that the writ Court shall not be denuded of its powers to issue direction to the respondent for payment of "admitted dues".

5. Whether or not the aforesaid document at page 96 vide Annexure-5 owns liability for payment to the appellant, in our opinion, can also be looked into by the respondent No. 2.

6. Therefore, without observing anything on the merits of the matter as sought to be projected by Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant, we would direct the respondent No. 2 to permit the appellant to produce any other or further documentary evidence including the aforesaid Annexure-5 and pass a reasoned order within three months.

7. This goes without saying that dismissal of the writ petition and the present Letters Patent Appeal shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the claim raised by the appellant.

8. L.P.A. No. 265 of 2020 stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions to the respondent No. 2.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/Mukul