Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2213 (PAT)

Yamuna Nayak @ Jamuna Nayak v. State of Bihar

2011-11-04

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2011
Order Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the Secretary of the Department as respondent no. 8. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order contained in Annexure-1 issued by the Block Development Officer, Jamalpur by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit the cost of 263 quintals of rice. 4. The petitioner is a P.D.S. dealer who was to store rice for the District Rural Development Authority for the purposes of distributing the rice through the agent to the laborers under the Sampurn Gram Rozgar Yojna Scheme-II. The Central Government had• floated the scheme in 2002 for the benefit of the laborers, to the extent, that they would be given food for work alongwith payment of cash in a certain ratio. Permits were issued. by the Rural Development Authorities to the agent looking after the work. On the basis of the permits issued, the rice was handed over to the agents for the purpose of distribution to the laborers. The total amount of rice in the' store of the petitioner was about 781 quintals. Out of that it is said that about 518 quintals was distributed through the permits issued from time to time. The scheme closed some time in 2006. After the scheme came to an end, the rice remained with the P.D.S. dealers. Obviously the dealer could not have sold the rice without the permission of the authorities. It is strange that the authorities concerned conveniently forgot about the rice stored with the different P.D.S. dealers in the State. 5. An audit was conducted which revealed that the rice supplied was not utilized by the Rural Development Authority. The result is that the authorities have issued notices to several P .D.S. dealers who had merely acted as storekeepers for the Rural Development Department to deposit the money for the rice which was stored with them. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by such an order, dated 6.8.2009. This court finds that the Rural Development Authorities have prima facie passed the buck to the P.D.S., dealers. 7. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by such an order, dated 6.8.2009. This court finds that the Rural Development Authorities have prima facie passed the buck to the P.D.S., dealers. 7. The counter affidavit does not disclose that the Rural Development Authorities after 2002 and till 6.8.2009 issued any letter to the dealers to sell the rice in question or to return the rice to the godown from which it was lifted and by the impugned notice want to get over this lacunae on their part. The role of the P.D.S. dealer in this particular scheme was that of a store keeper. The dealer could not have sold the rice without permission nor could utilize it for any other purpose without there being any authorization by the competent authority. Rice being perishable item must have deteriorated to the extent that it cannot be declared to be fit for human consumption. 8. In such circumstances the notice to the dealers to sell the rice and deposit the money with the Block Development Officer and that too at the current market rate is unreasonable and unfair. The carelessness, if at all, appears to be on the part of the Rural Development Authorities, as they have not explained or discharged the duties which were assigned to them by the Central Government. 9. In the circumstances 'the order as contained in Annexure-1, dated 6.8.2009 is quashed. The matter may be examined by the respondent Secretary of the Department for fixing the responsibility to the persons entrusted with the scheme. 10. This writ petition is, thus allowed.