IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.392 of 2007 12 4.2.2009 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Food and Civil Supply, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Provident Fund, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Gaya 6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya 7. The S.D.Magistrae, Sherghati, District Gaya 8. The Accountant General, Bihar II (A&E), District Gaya ... Respondents/Appellants VERSUS 1. Sushila Devi wife of late Rabindra Kumar Singh, resident of Mohalla Mohan Nagar near DM Kothi Jail Road, Gaya Police Station Rampur, district Gaya 2. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna-1. ... Petitioner/ Respondents -------- Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the intervener- Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the respondent herein. The main issue to be decided in the writ petition was whether certain amount of money of the respondent Corporation allegedly taken as advance by the husband of the petitioner could be recovered by the Corporation on account of a determination made by the Corporation through office order dated 19.12.2001 passed pursuant to direction of this Court in CWJC No.5856 of 2001 disposed of on 30.7.2001. There is no dispute that the order for recovery of specified amount from 2 the husband of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-3 to the LPA was challenged by the husband of the petitioner through CWJC No.10444 of 2002 which was disposed of as not pressed, on 20.6.2005. On behalf of the appellants it has been submitted that these important facts could not be considered by the learned single Judge and the writ petition was allowed under an impression that action for recovery was being taken against a retired and deceased person without there being any determination of liabilities to refund advance taken by the employee while he was in service under the Corporation on deputation. Learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the money has ultimately to be deposited with the Corporation and the order of recovery was passed by the Corporation but the Corporation was not made a party to the writ petition. In view of aforesaid facts and submissions, we are of the view that interest of justice requires that the matter be reheard and redecided by the Writ Court after giving opportunity to the Corporation to get itself impleaded and place on record the relevant facts. The order under appeal is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Writ Court 3 for fresh decision. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed accordingly. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (J.N.Singh, J.) sk