Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17000 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Sitaram Shah S/O Late Kuldip Shah Resident Of Village- Naya Gaon Mahuawa, P.O.+P.S.- Piprahi, District- Sheohar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Food And Consumers Affairs, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, District Sheohar 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, District Sheohar 4. The District Certificate Officer, Sheohar 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, District Sheohar 6. The Block Development Officer, Block- Piparahi, District- Sheohar 7. The Officer-In-Charge, Piparahi Police Station, District Sheohar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17042 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Sarwajeet Paswan S/O Late Badri Paswan Resident Of Village- Belwa, P.O- Belwa, P.S- Piprahi, District- Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Food And Consumers Affairs, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, District- Sheohar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, District- Sheohar. 4. The District Certificate Officer, Sheohar. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, District- Sheohar. 6. The Block Development Officer, Block- Piparahi, District- Sheohar. 7. The Officer In- Charge, Piparahi, Police Station- District- Sheohar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17073 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Bindeshwari Prasad S/O Late Jay Kishun Shah Resident Of Village- Piprahi, P.O+ P.S- Piprahi, District- Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumers Affairs, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, District- Sheohar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, District- Sheohar. 4. The District Certificate Officer, Sheohar. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, District- Sheohar.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.17000 of 2013 (2) dt.13-09-2013 2 6. The Block Development Officer, Block- Piparahi, District- Sheohar. 7. The Officer In- Charge, Piparahi, Police Station, District- Sheohar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17371 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Bindeshwari Prasad @ Bindeshwar Prasad S/O Late Jay Kishun Shah Resident Of Village- Piprahi, P.O+ P.S- Piprahi, District- Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumers Affairs, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, District- Sheohar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, District- Sheohar. 4. The District Certificate Officer, Sheohar. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, District- Sheohar. 6. The Block Development Officer, Block- Piparahi, District- Sheohar. 7. The Officer In- Charge, Piparahi, Police Station, District- Sheohar. .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17407 of 2013 ====================================================== Jagarnath Prasad S/o late Ram Dhari Shah resident of village Piprahi, P.O. + P.S. Piprahi, Dist. Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumers Affairs, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, District- Sheohar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, District- Sheohar. 4. The District Certificate Officer, Sheohar. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, District- Sheohar. 6. The Block Development Officer, Block- Piparahi, District- Sheohar. 7. The Officer In- Charge, Piparahi, Police Station, District- Sheohar.
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 2 13-09-2013 Heard Mr. Kejriwal, who appears in all the five writ petitions and learned counsel(s) for the State. Patna High Court CWJC No.17000 of 2013 (2) dt.13-09-2013 3 In all the writ petitions similar/identical issues have been raised wherein the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice to them under Section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 ( for short ‘PDR Act’) for realization of the dues from the petitioners on account of non refund of the rice allotted to the petitioners under the SGRY scheme of the Government and/or non payment of the cost of the rice so allotted to the petitioners but remained undistributed. Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioners made diverse submissions to assail the initiation of the proceedings itself. It has been stated that the respondents have not determined the actual amount payable by the petitioners to the State after giving opportunity of hearing. It has next been submitted that the SGRY scheme was in vogue between the year 2001- 2005. Several years after closure of the scheme such demand has been raised invoking the provisions of the PDR Act which is barred by law. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the PDR Act itself provides a complete mechanism for considering such objection(s). The petitioners are required to file objection under Section 9 of the PDR Act for consideration/ adjudication by the Certificate Officer. If the Patna High Court CWJC No.17000 of 2013 (2) dt.13-09-2013 4 petitioners are dissatisfied therewith then there is remedy available to them in filing appeal thereagainst. The petitioners, in such circumstances, be permitted to file objection in the connected certificate proceeding(s) initiated against them which may be
Decision
directed to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Having considered the submissions of the parties, it appears that the petitioners while functioning as PDS dealers were allotted certain amount of foodgrains/ rice for distribution amongst eligible persons under the Central Scheme called SGRY. The said scheme was in operation till 2005-06. The rice/grains allotted to the petitioners for diverse reasons remained undistributed. It is the case of the petitioners that the rice for want of distribution amongst the eligible persons within time decayed. Now the respondents have initiated proceeding(s) for recovery of the amount under the PDR Act for which notices have been issued to the petitioners. Petitioners have a right to file objection(s) thereagainst for consideration by the Certificate Officer in which all relevant issues can be raised by the petitioners for consideration and adjudication. In that view of the matter, this Court, while declining the relief(s) prayed for in the application, would permit the petitioners to file objection(s) in the connected certificate Patna High Court CWJC No.17000 of 2013 (2) dt.13-09-2013 5 proceeding(s) initiated against them within 03 weeks. Once the objection is /are filed by the petitioners within the aforesaid time the Certificate Officer shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Until disposal of the objection(s) filed by the petitioners within 03 weeks from today no coercive step in connection with certificate case pending against the petitioners shall be taken by the respondent Certificate Officer. Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel has submitted that in few matters bailable warrants have been issued by the respondent Certificate Officer. If that be so, this Court directs that for a period of 03 weeks from today no such coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners enabling them to file objection in the light of the present order. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-