Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2328 (PAT)

Niranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar

2011-11-23

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2011
ORDER Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply, Government of Bihar, Patna as respondent no.10. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order contained in Annexure 1 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner –cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Munger by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit the cost of 1110.5 quintals of rice at the rate of Rs. 1310/- per quintal. 4. The petitioner is a Public Distribution System 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 the year 2002 for the benefit of the laborers, to the extent, that they would be given food for work along with 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 1939.64 quintals. Out of that, it is said that 829.14 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 Public Distribution System 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 Public Distribution System 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 Public Distribution System Dealers who had merely acted as store keepers 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 18.07.2009. This Court finds that the Rural Development Authorities have prima facie passed the buck to the Public Distribution System Dealers. 7. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by such an order, dated 18.07.2009. This Court finds that the Rural Development Authorities have prima facie passed the buck to the Public Distribution System Dealers. 7. The counter affidavit does not disclose that the Rural Development authorities after 2002 and till 18.07.2009 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 Public Distribution System Dealers in this particular scheme was that of a store keeper. The dealers 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. In such circumstances the notice to the dealers to sell the rice and deposit the money with the Cashier of the Office of the Zila Parishad, Munger 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. 8. In the circumstances the order as contained in Annexure 1, dated 18.07.2009 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. 9. This writ petition is, thus allowed.