IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13343 of 2009 ***** 1. KRISHNA MURARI BHARTIA S/O- SHANKER PRASAD BHARTIA VILL- KOT BAZAR, P.S + DISTT- SITAMARHI …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY (NOW KNOWN AS FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT), BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR SITAMARHI …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 28.10.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner has filed the present writ application making a grievance that the impugned order contained in Annexure-8 dated 19.6.2009 is not in conformity with the earlier observation or the direction of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5402 of 2009, which is dated 28.4.2009 and is annexed as Annexure-7. The short facts are that the petitioner was directed to deposit money with Harinagar Sugar Mill and lift the levy sugar for distribution through P.D.S. scheme. Petitioner carried out the responsibility with certain reservation since there was an increase in the price of the levy sugar in terms of the Central Government’s notification. The petitioner had to approach the High Court earlier making a grievance that he is not being paid the requisite money by the concerned authorities and the matter has remained pending for many a years. Last of the order which came to be passed is Annexure-7. By virtue of this order learned Single Judge disposed of the writ application leaving it to the Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection to consider the matter and pass an appropriate order with regard to payment of interest to the petitioner as way of - 2 - compensation for delayed payment or whatever be it. Matter has been considered and by a speaking order the Secretary states that since there was no delay at the level of the State Government there is no question of issuing any order for payment of interest. This is the cause for which the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel representing the State submits that the issue was referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned to consider the matter on the given facts and the parameters. He submits that the Secretary has rightly held that the State has no responsibility as there was never any delay in their conduct with regard to the transaction in question. Admitted position is that the payments have to be made either by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation or Food Corporation of India, as the case may be, if at all, but at no point of time they were made a party in the writ application. Liability, if at all, is that of the Corporation, is being placed on the head of the State. The Court has gone through the order contained in Annexure-7, this fact has been noted by the learned Single Judge in his order but he has disposed of the writ application by giving a direction to the Secretary to look into the matter. The Secretary has passed an order denying the liability and responsibility of the Department or the State. He cannot fix responsibility upon others who were neither before the Court nor before him. If that be so then the reasoning assigned by the Secretary cannot be said to be erroneous. The writ application has not merit. It is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)