IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.755 of 2010 LAXMI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE UMESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, P.O. & P.S.- KATRI SARAI, DISTT.- NALANDA (BIHAR). . . . . . . . APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA. 3. THE CERTIFICATE OFFICER, NALANDA (BIHAR SHARIF) 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NALANDA (BIHAR SHARIF) 5. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, GIRIAK-CUM-KATRISARAI, NALANDA (BIHAR SHARIF) 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KATRISARAI, NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF. . . . . . . RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3/ 04.05.2011 Heard Mr. Shyamdeo Singh, counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.P. Verma, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Adovcate-3. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.03.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14369 of 2008, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and it has been held that the dues can be realized from the estate of the deceased. 3. Before we examine the statements made by the appellant, it would be appropriate to notice the facts of the case in short: The husband of the appellant was P.D.S. dealer and entrusted with certain food-gains like 402.26 quintals of rice under National Rojgar Guarantee Yojana, and another 253.39 quintals of rice under Zila Parishad Quota. The husband of the appellant passed away on 27.11.2003. After the death of the husband of the appellant, the balance quantity of food-grains which was not distributed to the card-holders were not returned. 2 Therefore, proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act was initiated in view of Section 7 A of the Essential Commodities Act. The appellant filed writ petition against the demand raised in the recovery proceedings. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the materials, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 4. The appellant submits that an agreement was arrived at between her husband and the respondents, as such the dues of her husband cannot be recovered from her. Learned counsel further submits that the Certificate Proceedings would not be maintainable. 5. Counsel for the State justifies the recovery proceedings and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the husband of the appellant was a P.D.S. dealer and had been allotted certain quantity of food-grains for distribution to the card-holders. After allotment of the food-grains, he passed away. In terms of the agreement, as well as Section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act, recovery proceeding was initiated for realization of Public Demand. In view of the provisions of Section 7A of the Act, an agreement was arrived between the parties and in this view there is no merit in the submission of the appellant that recovery proceeding was not maintainable. The demand could be recovered from the estate of the deceased. 7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit 3 in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Uday/ (S. K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)