Patna High Court
Ram Chandra Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 6 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6469 of 2019
======================================================
Ram Chandra Mahto, male, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Tunha Mahto,
Resident of Village- Kamta, P.S.- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sheikhpura.
4. The Block Development Officer Block- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura.
5. The Certificate Officer, Sheikhpura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to SC-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 06-02-2023
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
dated 12.01.2019 passed by the Block Development
Officer, Sheikhpura (respondent No. 4), in the district of
Sheikhpura, who has directed the petitioner to refund
the value of undistributed rice weighing 2205.65 quintals
under the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana
(S.G.R.Y.) within one week of the receipt of the notice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6469 of 2019 dt.06-02-2023
3. The petitioner objects to such unilateral
decision of respondent No. 4/the Block Development
Officer, who is said to be acting purportedly under the
opinion given by Hon'ble Justice Uday Sinha Commission
of inquiry with respect to this matter.
4. As has been explained to us, P.D.S. dealers
were chosen as agencies to provide Government food-
grains 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.
5. 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
Commission for the reason that even if the food-grains
Patna High Court CWJC No.6469 of 2019 dt.06-02-2023
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 refund the
amount of undelivered food-grains, but whether the
petitioner is at all entitled to return the same.
6. 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.
7. In any view of the matter, it is required to
be verified as to whether any requisition by the
concerned authority for refunding the value of
undistributed rice under S.G.R.Y. was given to the
petitioner 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6469 of 2019 dt.06-02-2023
the Hon'ble Commission, it has been urged, the
petitioner could not have been asked to return the
amount of undelivered food-grains.
8. We find that no such exercise has been
made and in a most unreasonable manner, the
petitioner, as a dealer, has been asked to return the
amount within a period of one week.
9. The order dated 12.01.2019, referred to
above, is not only unintelligible but unreasonable and
unsustainable too in the eyes of law.
10. For this reason, the order is set-aside.
11. The matter is remanded to respondent
No. 4/the Block Development Officer, Sheikhpura to find
out and ascertain as to whether the amount of
undelivered food-grains is due against the petitioner in
his capacity as a dealer and whether he was notified by
way of requisition or otherwise to make goods available
under S.G.R.Y.
12. In the absence of this finding, even after
Patna High Court CWJC No.6469 of 2019 dt.06-02-2023
the report of the Hon'ble Commission of Justice Uday
Sinha (Retired), such an order, as impugned in this
petition, cannot be passed.
13. The respondent No. 4/the Block
Development Officer, Sheikhpura, 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.
14. The impugned order is set-aside and the
matter is remitted to respondent No. 4/the Block
Development Officer, Sheikhpura for the needful.
15. The petition stands allowed accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 10-02-2023
Transmission Date N/A
