Upendra Prasad v. The State of Bihar
Judgment
of Bihar, Namely Sri Santosh Mathur
#4. The Commissioner, Magadh Commissionary, Patna, Namely K. P. Ramaiya
#5. The District Officer-Cum-District Magistrate, District Nalanda at Biharshari, Namely Sanjay Kumar Agrawal
#6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda at Biharsharif, Namely Sri Jay Singh
#7. The Director, District Rural Development Authority, Namely Sri Jiyut Singh
#8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda, Namely Amresh Kumar Amar
#9. The Block Development Officer, Rahui, Anchal- Rahui, District- Nalanda, Namely Rajiv Ranjan Mehta .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrit Abhijat For the Respondent/s : Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath Aag3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH) 3 25-01-2012 The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13924 of 2011 for quashing Memo no. 883 dated
08.06.2011, issued by the Block Development Officer, Rahui directing him to refund Rs.32,84,003/- towards the value of
2341.9 quintals of undistributed rice under Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna at A.P.L. rate if Rs.13.70/- per kg. Patna High Court MJC No.4875 of 2011 (3) dt.25-01-2012 2 The petitioner submits that he had gone to deposit the required rice in Government Godown but however the same was not accepted. The time period for deposit of 15 % of the value of undistributed rice at the rate of Rs. 10/- per kg. is extended by further six weeks from today. The Block Development Officer, Rahui (Opp. Party no.9) would accept the cash / cheque which will be deposited by the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/- (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.