IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7508 of 2010 1. Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O Sri Bam Kumar Sharma 2. Sushila Devi W/O Suresh Kumar Sharma Both resident of Village- Dargapur, P.S. Bachhbara, Distt.- Begusarai. ….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 5. District Magistrate, Begusarai. 6. District Agriculture Officer, Begusarai. 7. Block Agriculture Officer Bachhbara, District- Begusarai. …..Respondents. -------- For the petitioners : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate. With Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, Advocate. For the respondents : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, G. P. 17. ------- Present:- Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. N. Hussain O R D E R 06/ 24-11-2011 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for directing the respondents-authorities to grant subsidy against purchase of Tractor Operated Combine Harvester after quashing letter No.22 dated 08.01.2010 (Annexure-3) issued by the District Agriculture Officer, Begusarai (respondent no.6) disallowing the subsidy on the ground of non purchase of Self Propelled Combine Harvester. 2. The claim of the petitioners was that the cost of Tractor Operated Combine Harvester was Rs.14,92,000.00, out of which Rs.6,00,000.00 capital amount was to be deposited by the - 2 - petitioners to the Company through Bank, whereas Rs.8,92,000.00 was to be paid by the Bank to the Company, out of which Rs.5,00,000.00 was to be paid by Government to Bank directly and remaining Rs.3,92,000.00 was to be paid by the petitioners to Bank as loan with interest on instalments as fixed by the Bank. It is also claimed that a list of Combine Harvester was provided to the petitioners out of which the petitioners chose KS-513 TD Tractor Operated Combine Harvester Comb.-11/579/1999 manufactured by M/s K.S. Agricultural Industries (Regd.) Raikot Road, Mllerkotla District-Sangrur (Punjab). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further averred that Block Agriculture Officer, Bachhbara (respondent no.7) sent letter of recommendation dated 07.03.2009 (Annexure-2) for the aforesaid purpose to District Agriculture Officer, Begusarai, but by letter dated 08.01.2010 (Annexure-3), the District Agriculture Officer, Begusarai wrote letter to the petitioners rejecting their claim for subsidy on the ground that the Combine Harvester chosen by the petitioners was not self propelled. It was also claimed by learned counsel for the petitioners that on information received under the Right to Information Act, the petitioners also came to know that another person, namely Abinash Kumar was given subsidy although he purchased Tractor Operated Combine Harvester, which fact had not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Hence learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned rejection by the District Agriculture Officer, Begusarai of - 3 - petitioners’ claim of subsidy is illegal and perverse. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and denied any illegality committed by the authorities. It was also stated that information dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure-5) given under Right to Information Act did not disclose that it was with respect to Self Propelled Harvester and hence the same cannot be a basis on which the claim of the petitioners could be legally allowed. 5. Annexure-A to the counter affidavit as well as Annexure-4 to the writ petition clearly showed that a meeting of Technical & Assessment Committee was held by the authorities on 12.09.2008 under the Chairmanship of Dean, Bihar Agriculture Engineering College, PUSA in which Principal Agriculture Engineering College, PUSA, Director, Soil Conservation, Bihar, Patna, Deputy Agriculture Director, Farm, Bihar, Patna, Deputy Director, Survey Soil Conservation, Bihar, Patna and Deputy Agriculture Director, Extension Bihar, Patna participated and after due deliberation and after considering the consequences and effects of various types of operators/tillers, the said Committee determined the specification on subsidy of Combined Harvester as follows:- (i) Combine Harvester must of 70-110 H.P. (ii) Combine Harvester should be self propelled. (iii) It should be tested from FMT & TI and approved by Central Government. - 4 - 6. It also transpires that the determination of specification by the expert committee was forwarded to all the District Magistrates and District Agriculture Officers by the Director Agriculture, Patna for following the said specification vide memo no.7242 dated 03.12.2009 (Annexure-4). 7. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the respondents-authorities complied the said directions while considering the claim of the petitioners which was not found as per the aforesaid specifications and hence it was rejected by the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 (Annexure-3) by the District Agriculture Officer, Begusarai. 8. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the authority concerned, nor does it find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.