IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.704 of 2010 1. RAJAN THAKUR @ RAMASHANKAR THAKUR S/O SRI RAM MILAN THAKUR R/O VILL PIAR, P.S.PIAR, DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR -CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUZAFFARPUR 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER EAST MUZAFFARPUR 5. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER BANDARA, MUZAFFARPUR 6. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER BANDARA, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 02. 18.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The petitioner is stated not to be a P.D.S. dealer. He is aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2008, passed in Confiscation Case No. 06 of 2008-09, directing him to file his show cause with regard to seized food-grains and has simultaneously ordered for sale of the seized food-grains and deposit of the sale amount in the Treasury, subject to the final decision in the confiscation proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rice and wheat are otherwise free sale commodities. The petitioner is in possession of valid documents with regard to the allegedly seized food-grains. Merely because they may have been found in empty bags of Food Corporation of India, which is otherwise freely available in the market it does not lead to a presumption that they were P.D.S. food- grains. If respondents so alleged, the onus lies on them first. He relies on certain information furnished to him 2 under the Right To Information from the concerned Police Station. Unfortunately it is not the part of the record and it is not possible for the Court to look into the order relied upon without adequate opportunity to the respondents. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. Paragraph-8 of the same states that in case the confiscation proceedings fails, the sale price deposited in the Treasury shall be returned to the petitioner. In terms of the aforesaid discussion, the writ application is disposed with directions to pass a reasoned and speaking order in the confiscation proceeding more particularly with regard to the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner as noticed above within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if not already disposed. If the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim, necessary consequential orders for return of the amounts in question are required to be passed simultaneously and complied with. If the respondents hold in favour of the petitioner, they are required to consider any request by him for reimbursement at the market rate and interest, if any permissible. The application stands disposed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)