IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9565 of 2010 M/s Radha Vanaspati, Radha Nagar, Motihari, Bihar a Proprietorship Firm through its Proprietor Yamuna Kumar Sikaria, R/o Radha Nagar, Motihari. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through The Secretary, Ministry Of Consumer Affairs, Food And Public Distribution (Department Of Food and Public Distribution), Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Food Corporation of India through Its Managing Director, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Deputy General Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office, Patna, Bihar. . 4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Motihari, District- East Champaran. 5. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department Of Food and Civil Supplies, Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari, District - Motihari. 7. District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari,District-Motihari. ……. Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate. Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prahalad Kr. Bhagat, AC to AAG-V. For the F.C.I. : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, Advocate. ----------- 8. 07.12.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities (Respondent nos. 5 to 7) and learned counsel for Food Corporation of India and its authorities (Respondent nos. 2 to 4). No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 1, the Union of India although copies of the writ petition had been served on its counsel and his name is appearing on the daily cause list. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no. 1 although specific relief has been sought against Respondent no. 1 vide amendment sought in I.A. No. 9337 of 2010. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - 2 - for a direction to the Food Corporation of India to pay the petitioner with interest the Incentive Bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal as has been declared by the State Government over and above the Incentive Bonus of Rs. 50 per quintal to be paid by the Central Government on the minimum support price of paddy and had been paid by the petitioner at the time of purchase effected from the farmers and which has already been received by respondent no. 2 from the State Government for payment to the petitioner and for other ancillary relief. 3. Vide I.A. No. 9337 of 2010, the petitioner sought amendment for adding the relief of quashing the costing sheet for the KMS 2008-09 and 2009-10 as appended to Annexure-1 & 1A and issued by letters dated 19.11.2008 and 20.11.2009 by the Under Secretary to the Government of India as well as the costing sheet so far as it concerns the State of Bihar as the same did not cater for the State Incentive Bonus while calculating the cost of the paddy for the purpose of extraction of rice and for direction to Respondent no. 1 to add the State Incentive Bonus to the cost of paddy while calculating the cost of extraction of rice from the paddy. 4. It is not in dispute that the State Government (Respondent no. 5) had appointed certain institutions for procurement of rice and paddy namely Food Corporation of India, National Agricultural Bank for Rural Development, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies, Bihar State Co- operative Marketing Union and State Food Corporation. It is - 3 - also admitted fact that the Food Corporation of India (Respondent no. 2) procured paddy directly from the farmers and rice from millers and other agencies including the petitioner which procured paddy from the farmers and converted it into rice through the process and supplied it to the Corporation. 5. It is also not in dispute that incentive bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal had been declared by the Central Government on the minimum support price of paddy and in-furtherance thereof incentive bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal had also been declared by the State Government over and above price fixed by the Government of India. It is also not in dispute that the incentive bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal as declared by the Central Government on the minimum support price of paddy has been paid by it in the incentive bonus. The instant dispute is with respect to the incentive bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal as declared by the State Government. 6. Learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India (Respondent no. 2) submits that it had received Rs. 20 crores from the State Government under KMS 2008-09 and it was authorized only to pay the incentive bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal as declared by the State Government directly to the farmers from whom it had procured paddy and hence it paid Rs. 19, 74, 07, 665.00 to the farmers directly. He further submits that it was not authorized to give the incentive bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal as declared by the State Government to - 4 - the millers to be paid to the farmers from whom the millers had procured paddy, hence, in absence of the required authorization the Corporation refunded Rs. 25,32,335.00 to the State Government. 7. Learned counsel for State of Bihar (Respondent no. 5) submits that it had already advanced the said money to the Food Corporation of India for the purpose and hence it had done what was required. However, it transpires from the materials of the case that mere making the fund available to the Food Corporation of India was not sufficient rather authorisation was required from the State Government for the Food Corporation of India to pay the said incentive bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal to the millers including the petitioners, who had already paid that amount to the farmers while procuring paddy. Such authorization was never made by the authorities. 8. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the State Incentive Bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal as declared by the State Government has been paid to the farmers who had supplied paddy to the millers only by the millers including the petitioner and not by the State Government or any of its institutions. Thus the State Government as per its declaration is bound to pay the incentive bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal to the petitioner, who had already paid that amount on behalf of the State Government to the farmers while procuring paddy. 9. Accordingly, the State Government and its authorities (Respondent nos. 5 to 7) are directed to make the - 5 - fund available to the Food Corporation of India along with the required authorization so that the amount of State Incentive Bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal as declared by the State Government is made available to the petitioner, who had already made payment of the State Incentive Bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal to the farmers, within two months along with the minimum support price. 10. Furthermore, so far as the claim of the petitioner challenging Costing sheet for the KMS 2008-09 and 2009-10 vide letters dated 19.11.2008 and 20.11.2009 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India as well as the costing sheet so far as it concerns the State of Bihar not catering to the State Incentive Bonus while calculating the cost of paddy for the purpose of extraction of rice with a direction to Respondent no. 1 to add the State Incentive Bonus to the cost of paddy while calculating the cost of extraction of rice from the paddy is concerned, the said relief cannot be legally granted to the petitioner as the incentive bonus of Rs. 50/- per quintal was declared by the State Government much prior which was over and above the Incentive Bonus declared by the Central Government on the minimum support price of paddy. 11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sujit (S.N. Hussain, J.)