Judgment Mridula Mishra, J. 1. Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation and its Chairman are the petitioners in the present writ application. 2. Prayer of the petitioners in this writ application is for quashing the communication issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supplies Corporation, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent No. 2) to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, Jharkhand respondent No. 3 contained in Memo No. 1771 dated 24.11.2004 where the respondent No. 3 has been directed to appoint Transporting-cum-Handling Agent for the district of Pakur. The ground for issuance of such direction by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 mentioned in the letter dated 24.11.2004 is that the Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as the Corporation) has been careless in lifting the food grains. Further prayer is for quashing the tender notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, Jharkhand respondent No. 4 in the daily addition of Dainik Jagran dated 12.12.2004 inviting tender for award of contract for transportation of food grains. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the communication issued by respondent No. 3 contained in Memo No. 227 dated 17.12.2004 whereby one Amarjit Bhagat has been appointed as Transporting-cum- Handling agent in the district of Pakur in the State of Jharkhand. Petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction commanding the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the corporation in any manner which may result in depriving the corporation from carrying out its business activity in State of Jharkhand. 3. The Bihar State food & Civil Supplies corporation was incorporated as State Government Company with an object to deal in food grains and other essential commodities for providing it to the citizens of the State on reasonable and competitive price. Subsequently the activities of the corporation was extended beyond food grain and edible items. The area of activity of the corporation prior to coming into force of the Bihar State Re-organisation Act, 2000 was within the entire erstwhile State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar and creation of successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand, certain controversies with regard to extent of territorial jurisdiction of the corporation in regard to carrying out its business activities were raised. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar and creation of successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand, certain controversies with regard to extent of territorial jurisdiction of the corporation in regard to carrying out its business activities were raised. This dispute was resolved with the intervention of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Home Affairs vide its order dated 13th September, 2004 in exercise of power conferred upon it under Sec. 65(1) and (2) of Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 and following directions were given based on the mutual agreement of both the States. (i) The share of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation will be divided between State of Bihar and Jharkhand in the ratio 3:1. (ii) The representation of State of Bihar and Jharkhand in the Board of Directors of the Corporation will be divided in the ratio of 3:1. 4. One of the main function of the Corporation in the erstwhile State of Bihar was to act as an agency for providing food grains in the two successor states and that was also the principal sources of earning for sustainance of the Corporation. Even after bifurcation and creation of the successor States, the Corporation was continuing with the activities which were being carried prior to the bifurcation of the State. The responsibility of lifting food grains from Food Corporation of India and providing to the respective districts according to its allotment made by the State of Bihar as well as State of Jharkhand was also being carried out by the corporation. When the respondent No. 3 issued advertisement through news paper on 15.10.2004 inviting tender for appointment of Transporting-cum- Handling Agent for lifting of food grain from F.C.I. for meeting the requirements of various centrally sponsored schemes. It came as shock to the corporation as this work was being carried out by the Corporation so far. This was the main source of income of the Corporation for the last couple of years as the it was facing serious financial constrains. Corporation was feeling difficulty even in paying regular salary to the employees. In this circumstances the step which was taken by the respondents was going to effect the financial interest of the corporation. This was the main source of income of the Corporation for the last couple of years as the it was facing serious financial constrains. Corporation was feeling difficulty even in paying regular salary to the employees. In this circumstances the step which was taken by the respondents was going to effect the financial interest of the corporation. Petitioner No. 2 immediately brought this development to the knowledge of the then Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and apprised her that the steps are being taken in violation of the decision of the Government of India and requested for an appropriate action. The petitioner No. 2 also wrote letters to the Secretary, Food & Civil Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Jharkhand in order to bring this to his notice that the steps for appointing Transporting and Handling Agents are being taken without even informing the petitioners regarding unsatisfactory work of Transporting and Handling agents. Petitioners case is that if the Corporation would have been timely apprised, some appropriate steps for shortning out the problem could have been taken. The request was also made not to entrust Tansporting and Handling work to any other agency and to reconsider about the notice issued for appointment of Transporting and Handling Agent. Since the action on the part of the respondents was wholly unreasonable and violative of the principle of natural justice, and the Corporation was going to suffer immense loss if such arbitrary action by the respondents authorities would not be checked, present writ application was filed. 5. During the pendency of the writ application by order dated 26.4.2005 the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand were directed to take decision with respect to the modalities for division of the assets and liabilities of the Corporation. 6. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and 2 filed affidavits and brought on the record the minutes of the meeting dated 8.8.2005 i.e. proposed agreement arrived at the level of the Departmental Secretaries of the two states (Annexure-Z/1). The proposed agreement arrived at the level of the departmental Secretaries of two States was final on the point of decision of assets and liabilities of the Corporation subject to approval of two State Governments and the Union of India. The approval was expected by 31.10.2005. In anticipation of the approval an order of Stay was passed on 25.8.2005. The proposed agreement arrived at the level of the departmental Secretaries of two States was final on the point of decision of assets and liabilities of the Corporation subject to approval of two State Governments and the Union of India. The approval was expected by 31.10.2005. In anticipation of the approval an order of Stay was passed on 25.8.2005. The parties were advised to take, action true in letter and spirit of the agreement. In terms of the agreement State of Jharkhand was directed to do the work of lifting and distribution of the items as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the agreement. In case of any doubt or difficulty within the State of Jharkhand, the views of the Directorate of Food and Civil Supplies, Jharkhand, shall prevail. The parties were also directed to observe restrain and magnanmity in carrying out the terms of the agreement. The parties were also directed to maintain status-quo till such time the issues relating to distribution of the assets and liabilities of the parties are finalized by the State Government. 7. Against the order dated 25.8.2005 L.P.A.No. 1217 of 2005 was filed by the Corporation which was partly allowed. The parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the business of the corporation as existing prior to the division of the States with a clarification that the directorate constituted by the divided State and named as Jharkhand State, Ranchi, respondent No. 1 cannot be prevented and will be at liberty to continue its business through newly constituted Corporation. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, was directed to take and decide the matter pending before it in relation to the subject matter of the division of assets in accordance with law expeditiously. 8. After disposal of L.P.A. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed supplementary counter affidavit stating that the agreement for apportionment of assets and liabilities of the corporation between the State of Bihar and Jharkhand arrived in the meeting of the authorities of State of Bihar and Jharkhand has been approved by the Government of India in its Ministry of Home Affairs by an order dated 16.12.2005 in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Sec. 65(1) & (2) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 . In view of the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Government of India, the Government of Jharkhand has issued notification contained in Memo No. 334 dated 23.2.2006 and has constituted a departmental committee for apportionment of assets and liabilities of the Corporation in between the State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar in proportion of 1:3. 9. Counsel appearing for Jharkhand State has submitted that now when everything has been settled and the Central Government has also passed final order of approval dated 16.12.2006. By this order the agreement arrived in between the official of the State dated 27.7.2005 has finally been affirmed. The officials of both the States have finally decided for the distribution of assets and liabilities. Now nothing is left to be done. The people of Jharkhand State is suffering on account of the negligent attitude of the petitioners corporation. The food grains are not being lifted timely and also not distributed among A.P.L/B.P.L. group. Evan after repeated reminders the petitioners/corporation is not properly lifting and handling the work. The State of Jharkhand due to slack and negligent attitude of the corporation in lifting the food grains is unable to carry out properly and satisfactorily the Antyodaya Yojna, Annapurna Yojna which are for the old age people and people belonging to lowest status The State of Jharkhand and its people are illegally being deprived of their right due to the slack and callous attitude on the part of the corporation and it cannot be allowed. The State of Jharkhand cannot remain a moot espectator for suffering of its citizens. 10. Mr. P.K. Shahi counsel appearing for the corporation submitted that it is a fact that the Government of Bihar vide its Resolution contained in Memo No. 1010 dated 23.3.2006 has resolved to finalise the apportionment of assets and liability in terms of the order dated 16.12.2005 of the Government of India but in view of observation made by the Hon ble Judge in a company matter, the matter is not being decided. The Hon ble Judge looking after the company matters, in the company case has observed that the Bihar State Financial Corporation being enlisted as Inter State Corporation its assets and liabilities can be apportioned following the procedure under Sec. 4 of the Enter State Act. The Hon ble Judge looking after the company matters, in the company case has observed that the Bihar State Financial Corporation being enlisted as Inter State Corporation its assets and liabilities can be apportioned following the procedure under Sec. 4 of the Enter State Act. Section 4(3) of the Inter State Corporation Act provides that where an order is made under Sec. 4 of the Act for transferring the assets, rights and liabilities of any inter-State Corporation, then, by virtue of that order, such assets, rights and liabilities of the inter-State corporation shall vest in and be the assets, rights and liabilities of the transferee state. 11. Counsel for the corporation has not filed any such affidavit neither has brought the order passed in the company case on the record. I find that the submission made by the Advocate General Bihar, for finally not deciding the issue relating to apportionment of assets and liability including personels of Corporation is not convincing. Bifurcation of State in consonance of Bihar Re-organisation Act took place in the year 2000. Part VI of the Bihar Re-organisation Act 2002 deals with apportionment of assets and liabilities. Present case comes under Sec. 65 of the Act, as the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation has specified the Ninth Schedule of this Act. The Central Government under Sec. 65(1), and (2) of the Act is authorised to pass any order regarding division of the interests and shares of Corporation among existing State of Bihar and the successor State Jharkhand. Such direction has already been issued by the Central Government on 26.12.2006. In that case delaying the matter for any reason is neither proper nor in consonance with the provisions of the Act. In view of Sec. 65(1) read with Schedule 9 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act transfer of assets and liabilities between the State of Bihar and Jharkhand has already been resolved by mutual consent of the authorities of both the States. This has also been approved by the Central Government by order dated 31.12.2006. There is no reason for not resolving the dispute as soon as possible. The Stay order passed by the L.P.A. Court was till the date the matter is finally resolved by the Central Board. That has already been done. This has also been approved by the Central Government by order dated 31.12.2006. There is no reason for not resolving the dispute as soon as possible. The Stay order passed by the L.P.A. Court was till the date the matter is finally resolved by the Central Board. That has already been done. In that view of the matter there is not subsisting order of stay in the matter, as such it is desirable that the final order/notification be issued in this respect within two months and the assets and liabilities in the ratio 3:1 as mutually decided be apportioned. The Jharkhand State will constitute its own State Food Corporation and will start looking after the lifting, handling, distribution and supply of food grains to its consumers under different schemes. 12. So far lifting of the food grains for A.P.L./B.P.L. Antyodaya schemes by the Jharkhand State is concerned, its reason has been assigned in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by Jharkhand State. No case of contempt is made out. 13. The impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are now free to pass similar orders in this regard, after issuance of final notification within two months.