Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 438 (PAT)

Radhe Raman Sharma v. State of Bihar

2023-04-07

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

body2023
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of Memo no. 3345 dated 28.07.2016, issued by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Special Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the District Agriculture Officer, Gaya and Nalanda have been directed to recover the extra amount of subsidy given to the petitioners and others. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the consequential demand notice dated 05.09.2016, issued by the respondent no. 5 i.e. the District Agriculture Officer, Gaya. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent- State had devised a Scheme for grant of agriculture subsidy to the farmers for purchase of scientific agricultural equipments so that it could benefit them in harvesting the crops and having a good agricultural heed. One of such Scheme was regarding grant of 50% subsidy on purchase of scientific agricultural devices and equipments, copy whereof has been brought on record by way of Annexure 1 to the present writ petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they had opted to purchase combined harvester (Tractor operated) and had participated in the Agricultural Device Fair organized at Gandhi Maidan, Gaya, from where they had purchased the combined harvester and upon the respondent-authorities being satisfied regarding purchase of the combined harvesters by the petitioners, a cheque of a sum of Rs. 5 lacs each was given to the petitioners by way of subsidy as per the Scheme in vogue. 4. At this juncture, it would be relevant to depict the details pertaining to the purchase of combined harvesters by the petitioners in a tabular form, hereinbelow:— Sl. no. Name of the petitioner Invoice number with date Bill amount qua purchase of Harvester 1. Radha Raman Sharma 45 dated 24.12.2011 Rs. 7,50,000/- 46 dated 24.12.2011 Rs. 7,48,000/- 2. Nazrul Husnain 41 dated 18.10.2011 Rs. 6,98,839/- 42 dated 18.10.2011 Rs. 7,01,161/- 3. Sukhdeo Singh 47 dated 24.12.2011 Rs. 7,50,000/- 48 dated 24.12.2011 Rs. 7,48,000/- 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the value of the combined harvesters purchased by the petitioners was above a sum of Rs. 10 lacs, the subsidy amount payable to them as also paid to them totals up to a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- 48 dated 24.12.2011 Rs. 7,48,000/- 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the value of the combined harvesters purchased by the petitioners was above a sum of Rs. 10 lacs, the subsidy amount payable to them as also paid to them totals up to a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, hence, there is no discrepancy in the amount of subsidy granted to the petitioners, thus, the impugned demand notice is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- State, though has submitted that the subsidy amount has not been paid as per the scheme but has miserably failed to furnish any plausible explanation, contradicting the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the one regarding payment of subsidy amount to the petitioners only after satisfaction regarding purchase of the combined harvesters by them during the course of Fair held at Gaya pertaining to sale of scientific agricultural equipments, hence, it appears that only with a view to harass the petitioners, the impugned notices dated 28.07.2016 and 05.09.2016 have been issued. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record and I find that firstly, the Principles of Natural Justice have not been complied with, inasmuch as no proof has been brought on record by the respondent- state to show that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioners prior to issuance of the aforesaid letter dated 28.07.2016, directing for recovery of the excess amount of subsidy paid to the petitioners, hence, the impugned demand notices dated 28.07.2016 and 05.09.2016 are fit to be set aside on the aforesaid ground alone. Reference in this connection be had to the celebrated judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another, reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 as also the one rendered in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 602 , wherein, in paragraph no. 55, it has been observed as follows:— “…….. so also the violation of Principles of Natural Justice renders the act a nullity.” Reference be also had to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Sudhir Kr. Singh & others, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 847. 55, it has been observed as follows:— “…….. so also the violation of Principles of Natural Justice renders the act a nullity.” Reference be also had to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Sudhir Kr. Singh & others, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 847. However, this Court also finds that only after the respondent-authorities were fully satisfied that the petitioners have purchased harvesters during the course of the Fair organized at Gaya, the amount of subsidy was paid to them, thus, even on merits, the respondent- State has got no case. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I deem it fit and appropriate to quash Memo no. 3345 dated 28.07.2016, issued by the respondent no. 3 qua the petitioners herein as also the demand notice issued to the petitioners dated 05.09.2016/ 24.09.2016. 9. The writ petition stands allowed.