IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.645 of 2011 1. RAM LAKHAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE DASO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT ANDHARWARI, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 2. SURENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF KARU CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT LENGURA, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 3. RAM LAKHAN PANDEY, SON OF RAM BRIKSHA PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TARGIR, PANCHAYAT LENGURA, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 4. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF SRI MOHAN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHIRAILA, PANCHAYAT HARDIA, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 5. PAPPU KUMAR, SON OF LATE DURGA SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT BAHADURPUR, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 6. ROKHSANA BANO, WIFE OF SRI WAZID ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHHATNI PALAKI, PANCHAYAT DHAMNI, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 7. MD. HADI AZIMUR RAHMAN, SON OF LATE MD. HABIBUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TAKIASARIF RAJAULI, PANCHAYAT RAJAULI PURVI, P.S. RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 8. INDRADEO RAM, SON OF LATE BALDEO RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HORILLA, PANCHAYAT AMAMA PURVI, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 9. ANIL KUMAR SINGH @ ANIL SINGH, SON OF SRI BALDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAUSHI, KALA, PANCHAYAT SIRODAWAR, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 10. SURESH PRASAD MALAKAR @ SURESH MALAKAR, SON OF LATE JAGDISH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAJAULI, PANCHAYAT TAKUA TAND, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 11. SATIYA DEVI WIFE OF SRI DARSHAN SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HARDIA, SECTOR B, PANCHAYAT HARDIA, P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA :--- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 5. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAWADA. 6. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, NAWADA. 7. SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 2 8. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RAJAULI CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF RAJAULI PANCHAYAT PARISHAD, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 9. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, RAJAULI CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF RAJAULI PANCHAYAT PARISHAD, DISTRICT NAWADA :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 04.02.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are licensee under the Public Distribution System. They have filed this writ petition assailing the contents of direction contained in Memo No. 2469 dated 08.09.2010, Annexure-6 series, whereunder the Licensing Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli asked the petitioners to deposit Rs. 57836/-, Rs. 244970/-, Rs. 128052/-, Rs. 275231/-, Rs. 107368+Rs. 191260, in all Rs. 298628/-, Rs. 59972/-, Rs. 108258/-, Rs.185522/-, Rs. 92709/- respectively the cost of food grain at the rate on which food grain is distributed to persons above the poverty line failing which legal action shall be taken against them. The food grain was kept in the godown of the petitioner during the year 2004-05, 2005-06 for distribution under Rural Employment Programme. It is 3 submitted on behalf of the petitioners that before issue of the aforesaid direction petitioners were never asked to show cause. It is also submitted that had the petitioners been given opportunity of being heard, they would have explained to the Licensing Authority that the food grain was kept under instructions of the Licensing Authority and soon after the scheme whereunder the food grain was kept in the godown of the petitioners came to close after 1st April, 2006 they requested the authorities to take away the remaining food grain otherwise the same is likely to be destroyed as the food grain has been kept under open sky for want of space in the godown of the petitioners. It is also submitted that petitioners are not responsible in any manner for the loss caused to the exchequer. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the State, it is evident that directions contained in notice dated 08.09.2010 was issued without giving the petitioners chance of being heard, in the circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioners to file 4 representation before the Licensing Authority, Sub- Divisional Officer, Rajauli against the direction contained in Memo No. 2469 dated 08.09.2010, Annexure-6 series, which should be considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli, in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)