Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15053 of 2013 ====================================================== Birodhi Sah Son Of Late Ram Dhari Sah Resident Of Village- Bhadwar Police Station- Bagengola, District- Buxar. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Licensing Authority under Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001, District- Buxar 4. The District Certificate Officer, District- Buxar 5. The District Supply Officer cum Secretary, District Licensing Authority under Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001, District- Buxar 6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dumrao, District- Buxar 7. The Block Supply Officer, Brahmpur Block, District- Buxar 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat Bhadwar Block- Brahmpur, Dist- Buxar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 2 13-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. With the consent of the parties the present application is being
Decision
disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner was PDS dealer between the periods 2002 to 2006. He was allotted rice/foodgrains under the scheme called Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojna ( for short ‘SGRY’) which was meant for providing rural employment under which wages of the workers was to be paid partly in kind and partly in cash. The licensees of the Public Distribution System were involved in the said scheme. The petitioner was supplied certain quantity of Patna High Court CWJC No.15053 of 2013 (2) dt.13-09-2013 2 rice. For diverse reasons the grains/rice supplied to the petitioner could not be distributed. The petitioner was required to refund the rice and/or the cost thereof. An FIR was lodged on 18.3.2008 by the Panchayat Secretary of the Area against the petitioner for mis- appropriation of 37 quintals of rice so allotted to the petitioner under SGRY. The petitioner was made to stand trial. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the said proceeding while the petitioner was in custody the District Administration permitted him to return 37 quintals of rice. The petitioner returned 37 quintals of rice in September, 2008. However in the trial arising out of the FIR lodged in respect thereof was taken vide Tr. No. 3322 of 2008 and learned trial Court by judgment and order dated 09-02-2009 found the petitioner guilty of the offence and convicted him under Sections 409 and 420 of the Penal Code. While convicting the petitioner the learned trial Court noted that at the instance of the District Administration the petitioner had deposited 37 quintals of rice during the pendency of the trial. Having been convicted and divested of his license the respondent in the year 2011 again filed a requisition for initiating a proceeding for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,20,560/- on account of non refund of 88 quintals of rice which includes 37 quintals of rice for which the prosecution was Patna High Court CWJC No.15053 of 2013 (2) dt.13-09-2013 3 lodged against the petitioner in which he was convicted by the learned trial Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of notice in the said proceeding being Certificate case no. 31 of 2011-12 (Annexure-1). Learned counsel submits that by another notice dated 26.6.13 (Annexure-5) the Block Development Officer had called upon the petitioner to appear before the Additional Collector Buxar ( the Certificate Officer) on 4.7.13. It is stated that on that day the petitioner visited the office of the Additional Collector but the said authority was not available inasmuch no proceeding was taken up and no date was fixed enabling the petitioner to appear thereat and file his objection. In such circumstance, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. On perusal of the materials on record this much is evident that the petitioner has now been proceeded against under the provisions of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act,1914 (for short ‘PDR Act’) for non payment/refund of 51+37 quintals of rice quantified at Rs. 1,20,560/- . On bare perusal of the materials on record, it appears the petitioner had earlier been proceeded against inasmuch as an FIR was lodged for non refund of 37 quintals of rice allotted to the petitioner under SGRY which resulted in conviction of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Patna High Court CWJC No.15053 of 2013 (2) dt.13-09-2013 4 petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to relevant part of the judgment and order of conviction wherein the learned trial Court noticed that the accused/petitioner had returned 37 quintals of rice during pendency of the said proceeding/trial. If that be so, then the respondents would not be justified in initiating a proceeding under the PDR Act for realization of the cost of 37 quintals of rice. It may be hit by the principles of double jeopardy. The question is whether this Court on this count should interfere with and quash the notice (Annexure-1) issued to the petitioner under the PDR Act. It appears from perusal of the notice, that the proceeding has been initiated for realization of cost of 88 quintals of rice. Said quantum includes 37 quintals of rice which was supplied to the petitioner under SGRY. The petitioner has stated that as per notice (Annexure-5) he attended the office of the Certificate officer ( The Additional Collector, Buxar) but no officer was present inasmuch as the proceeding being Certificate case no. 31 of 2011-12 was not taken up and any date was fixed thereat. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that if the petitioner has already been convicted for non refund of 37 quintals of rice even after noticing the fact that the said quantity of rice or cost thereof was refunded by the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.15053 of 2013 (2) dt.13-09-2013 5 during the pendency of the said case then the respondent would not be justified in proceeding any further for realization of the said amount. It has, however, been submitted that the petitioner be allowed to file an objection raising amongst others the aforesaid issue before the respondent Certificate Officer who shall consider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner has a remedy of filing objection under Section 9 of the PDR Act and bring to the notice of the authority under the PDR Act all his objection(s) and relevant facts for consideration/adjudication. Once such adjudication is made and the dues payable to the Government are quantified then only the respondent Certificate Officer shall proceed further in the matter including taking any coercive steps as provided under law. Having regard to the aforesaid, this Court directs the petitioner to file a detailed objection and raise all relevant issues/facts including the fact that part of the dues had already been paid and the remaining dues have become stale and barred by the provisions of law before the Certificate Officer who is the Additional Collector, Buxar in the present case within 03 weeks. The Certificate Officer shall thereafter fix a date in the said proceeding and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter proceed to dispose of the objection filed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.15053 of 2013 (2) dt.13-09-2013 6 petitioner in accordance with law. Until the objection of the petitioner filed under Section 9 of the PDR Act is disposed of no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Certificate case no. 31 of 2011-12. The application is disposed of. Shyam/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)