JUDGMENT : AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. 1. The dispute in the present appeal centres around the lifting of 706 quintals of Custom Milled Rice under the Procurement Scheme floated by the Central Government and implemented by the State Government chalking out a programme and action plan with guidelines in the manner in which paddy is to be procured and Custom Milled Rice supplied as per the said Scheme. 2. The respondent-petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS). It is has its own storage godown for the storage of paddy and is the authorized agency for procurement of paddy for the purpose of supplying Custom Milled Rice. The respondent-petitioner also has its own Rice Mill which is situate within the same campus. The bone of contention between the appellant-Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and the respondent-Society is about the actual stock of paddy procured by the respondent as per the cut-off date dated 31st of March, 2018 for the procurement year 2017-18. 3. The brief reference to the Procurement Policy is necessary in order to understand the controversy. For the procurement year 2017-18, the Government of India announced the programme through its Circular dated 9th August, 2017 fixing the time schedule for procurement of paddy and for supplying Custom Milled Rice. The programme, a copy whereof which has been placed before the Court announces that paddy shall be procured by the prescribed agency, which includes PACS, between the 15th November, 2017 to 31st March, 2018. It is also made clear that no purchase or procurement of paddy on an assurance basis will be negotiated. This appears to be a precaution in order to ensure that the paddy is purchased from the farmers and is actually stocked by the cut off date before it is milled. This in turn also ensures prompt payment to the farmers and also in achieving the actual target fixed for procuring foodgrains. 4. The same policy also prescribes that the Custom Milled Rice will be secured and supplied by 30th of June, 2018 and in special circumstances, the said supply of Custom Milled Rice from the paddy procured as above will stand extended till 31st July, 2018. 5. The policy also prescribes that no alteration will be permissible in the verified stocks of paddy after 31st of March, 2018. 5. The policy also prescribes that no alteration will be permissible in the verified stocks of paddy after 31st of March, 2018. The paddy will have to be milled and rice procured only through non-defaulting Millers who are approved by the District Task Force. There is a special precaution also mentioned in the action plan promulgated by the State on 14.11.2017 that the stock of procured paddy shall be stored and a videography will also be conducted in this regard. All this appears to have been provided for in the policy and the action plan to ensure that paddy is not obtained from any other sources, including hoarders and businessman after 31st March, 2018. The Scheme appears to be for ensuring direct purchase from the farmers to give them the benefit of payments as per the rates fixed by the Government promptly without the paddy being routed through middleman. 6. With all these caveats, the respondent-petitioner claims to have procured 110.100 Metric Tonnes of paddy. The stock of said paddy had to be verified and a final report of procurement had to be submitted. The report was furnished on 31st March, 2018 and the chart in this regard which is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition indicates that 4.680 Metric Tonnes of paddy was actually found, but in the remarks column it was mentioned that Custom Milled Rice was being prepared in addition thereto in the Mill premises. ¼iSDl jkbZl fey esa fefyax dj pkoy rS;kj gks jgk gS½ This endorsement in the said document which has been signed by the Cooperative Extension Officer of Udakishunganj is being relied upon by the respondent-petitioner to substantiate his claim that the procurement of 110.100 MT paddy had been actually made, but at the time of inspection, only 4.680 Metric Tonnes of paddy was available and the rest of the paddy as per the said endoresement was under the process of being milled. It is further the contention of the respondent that this verification of the Mill and the Godown which is in the same premises has been reported. It is further the contention of the respondent that this verification of the Mill and the Godown which is in the same premises has been reported. The respondent-petitioner further relies on the final verification sheet duly counter signed by the District Magistrate dated 25th April, 2018 where the same set of figures have been given, but in column 13 of the said document which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the endorsement is that during inspection the quantity of paddy was found less. ¼tkap ds Øe esa de ik;k x;k½ 7. This was objected to by the respondent-petitioner as an error of mentioning only 4.680 Metric Tonnes of paddy by the last date of procurement, i.e. 31st March, 2018, whereas the correct fact was that 110.100 Metric Tonnes of paddy had been procured and the balance of which was in the process of being milled. A request was, therefore, made by the respondent-petitioner that his actual stock of paddy should be treated as 110.100 Metric Tonnes and not 4.680 Metric Tonnes. Another representation was made by the petitioner on 18th May, 2018 addressed to the District Magistrate. 8. On these representations, it appears that the District Magistrate received a report from the Joint Inspection Team which inspection was carried out and a copy of the communication of the said report by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhepura dated 25th May, 2018 has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition which is addressed to the District Magistrate, Madhepura. The said report recites that during inspection which was carried out on 31st March, 2018 and on 07.04.2018 of the PACS Godown and Mill, it was found that 46.60 quintals contained in 117 bags of paddy was found and a verification report of 1054.20 quintals of Milled rice was also reported. Consequently, the milled rice to the extent of 706 quintals that was ready and available, the supply order thereof can be issued. This letter dated 25th of May, 2018 has also been made basis of the claim by the respondent-petitioner that it substantiates the availability of paddy which was milled, and the rice thereof was available within the date of procurement. The rice had to be supplied by 30th June, 2018 and, therefore, the said stock could have been lifted. 9. This letter dated 25th of May, 2018 has also been made basis of the claim by the respondent-petitioner that it substantiates the availability of paddy which was milled, and the rice thereof was available within the date of procurement. The rice had to be supplied by 30th June, 2018 and, therefore, the said stock could have been lifted. 9. A letter was despatched on 29th May, 2018 by the District Cooperative Officer, which is Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit of the appellants in this appeal addressed to the District Magistrate. In this letter, the District Cooperative Officer states that the Chairman of the respondent-PACS later on attempted to inform about the details of the supply of the stock, but he did not clarify as to how much paddy had been procured as against the last Custom Milled Rice stock. He also clarified that in the second inspection which was carried out (which appears to have been carried out on 20.04.2018) it was only the quantity of Custom Milled Rice which was verified and no verification of paddy was carried out. This letter of the District Cooperative Officer was supplemented by another letter dated 31st May, 2018 addressed to the District Magistrate reasserting that the District Level Team, which had carried out the inspection on 31st March, 2018, had verified the existence of only 46.80 quintals of paddy. He also clarified that no further procurement was permissible on assurance basis. 10. The respondent-petitioner filed the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal, namely CWJC No. 14890 of 2018, praying for a mandamus before this Court, but prior to this, the District Magistrate, Madhepura had written a detailed letter to the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Bihar on 26.6.2018, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit in this appeal, where the District Magistrate had sought guidance from the Principal Secretary with regard to the supply of Custom Milled Rice by the respondent-petitioner which he stated to be ready and available with the respondent-society. A letter was despatched by the Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Bihar on 17.07.2018 to the Principal Secretary of the Cooperative Department for taking appropriate action in the matter. A letter was despatched by the Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Bihar on 17.07.2018 to the Principal Secretary of the Cooperative Department for taking appropriate action in the matter. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was taken up on 30th July, 2018 and it was allowed with a mandamus to the appellant-respondents to lift the 706 quintals of rice from the respondent-petitioner. It is to be noted that the State and its authorities were not granted any time to file a reply. 11. The respondent-petitioner aggrieved by inaction on the part of the appellants filed MJC No. 3130 of 2018 alleging contempt of the said order in which notices were issued. 12. In between, the present appeal was filed and vide an interim order dated 11.10.2018, the operation of impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30th July, 2018 was stayed. The contempt application was adjourned thereafter and has been ordered to be listed after disposal of this appeal. 13. After having examined these facts, and there being a difference in the stand of the appellants and that of the District Magistrate, this Court had called upon the District Magistrate to file his personal affidavit to explain these contradictions. In response thereto, the District Magistrate-respondent no. 3 Shri Navdeep Shukla has filed his affidavit on 15th February, 2019 and in the said affidavit, the District Magistrate has indicated in paragraph 5 and 6 as follows:- “(5) That the Committee reported the quantum of paddy available in the PACS as 4.680 M.T. and 1054.20 quintal paddy in the rice mill. On the basis of paddy available in the PACS the report of 4.680 M.T. has been sent to the Principal Secretary, Cooperative. As the paddy lying in the rice mill could not be incorporated in the report, the Chairman of the PACS submitted a complain before the D.M. In the light of complain and facts contained therein the S.D.O. Udakishunganj and the D.D.C. Madhepura were directed to submit a joint factual report about the quantum of procurement and availability of the C.M.R. Both the officers enquired and reported vide letter no. 1554-2 dated 25-05-2018 as follows:- ^^fofnr gks fd Á[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] mnkfd'kquxat ,oa Á[kaM lgdkfjrk inkf/kdkjh] mnkfd'kquxat }kjk fnukad 31-03-2018 ,oa fnukad 07-04-2018 dks iSDl ehy rFkk iSdl xksnke dk lR;kiu fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa 117 cksjk ¼46-60- DohaVy½ /kku eatkSjk iSDl xksnke esa rFkk 1054-20 DohaVy /kku dk pkoy jkbZl ehy esa miyC/k jgus dk lR;kiu Áfrosnu Hkstk tk pqdk gSA bl vkyksd esa tkapksijkUr lalwfpr djuk gS fd eaTkkSjk iSDl jkbZl ehy esa rS;kj yxHkx 706 DohaVy pkoy dks] tks lhŒ,eŒvkjŒ vkiwfrZ gsrq rS;kj gS] mldh vkiwfrZ dk vkns'k fn;k tk ldrk gSA** This report is, in fact, Annexure-8 which has become the basis of the order in the writ. (6) That it is submitted that in the light of the enquiry report dated 25th May, 2018 a guideline has been sought from the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Bihar.” 14. The District Magistrate, therefore, appears to have indicated the report dated 25th May, 2018 to have been prepared on the basis of enquiry, but at the same time on the basis of the said-report, the District Magistrate has referred to his letter dated 26th June, 2018 that a guidance was sought from the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department. 15. After receipt of this affidavit of the District Magistrate, the appellant Corporation has filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the narrative aforesaid and the letter dated 3rd August, 2018 written by the Registrar Cooperative Societies to the Principal Secretary on 3rd August, 2018. The Registrar has opined that in view of the policy of the Central Government and the action plan guideline dated 14.11.2017 issued by the State Government, the District Magistrate or any other authority cannot alter the facts and figures as depicted in the final verification report. The Registrar accordingly placed the matter before the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies with a copy of the same to the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department. 16. The aforesaid narration of facts, therefore, indicates that the dispute as to whether the actual stock of paddy as claimed to have been procured by the respondent-petitioner was correctly verified or not as on 31st March, 2018 had to be dealt with. 16. The aforesaid narration of facts, therefore, indicates that the dispute as to whether the actual stock of paddy as claimed to have been procured by the respondent-petitioner was correctly verified or not as on 31st March, 2018 had to be dealt with. The learned Single Judge, without calling for any counter affidavit and without any pleadings on record to this effect, as has now been brought forth through the pleadings in the present appeal, has proceeded to issue a mandamus allowing the writ petition without recording any finding on the bone of contention between the parties. It is also evident that the District Magistrate has though indicated the existence of the report dated 25th May, 2018, but in his affidavit he has not referred to the other details with regard to the subsequent clarification which has been referred to in his letter dated 26.6.2018 that was despatched to the Principal Secretary, Cooperative for guidelines. He was also given no opportunity by the learned Single Judge to bring all these facts on record. 17. Thus, the authorities are shifting the burden from one to another, inasmuch as, the District Magistrate has sought a clarification from the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department and with a copy of the same to the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, whereas the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has written a letter to the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies with the opinion that the Nodal Department has to take a decision thereon. 18. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge did not appropriately deal with the matter by investigating these facts and allowing the appellants as well as the State Government to file a proper reply in the matter. The question as to whether the stock of paddy as claimed by the respondent-petitioner had been actually verified according to the guidelines and the time schedule fixed was a question of investigation into facts for which the matter ought to have been remitted to the State Government and, in our opinion, to the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna for an appropriate order in this regard. In the said background, the judgment of the learned Single Judge issuing a mandamus on 30th July, 2018 is not justified cannot be sustained. 19. In the said background, the judgment of the learned Single Judge issuing a mandamus on 30th July, 2018 is not justified cannot be sustained. 19. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 30th July, 2018 is set aside with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar to examine all these facts as narrated above and any other fact which may be relevant in this regard, and then pass an appropriate order within eight weeks of the presentation of the certified copy of this order before him. The appellants are directed to file a certified copy of this order before the aforesaid authority along with relevant documents and the respondent-petitioner may also represent its cause before the said authority to enable the decision to be expedited. 20. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid directions. The writ petition, CWJC No. 14890 of 2018 also stands disposed of.