CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6102 OF 1999 ===== In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ===== Manoj Kumar son of Mahendra Prasad, resident of Hariharganj, P.S.Nasriganj, District Rohtas ------- Petitioner versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 3. The Regional Director, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 4. The Assistant Director, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sasaram 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bikramganj cum Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Marketing Board, Natwar, Nasriganj Sub-division, Bikramganj, District Rohtas 6. The Marketing Secretary, Agriculture Produce Marketing Board, Natwar, Nasriganj, District Rohtas ------- Respondents ===== P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Ajay Kumar Tripath,J. Petitioner was one of the successful bidders for settlement of Nasriganj Subzi Hat in the district of Rohtas. He deposited a sum of Rs. 1, 88,875/- as security money and the bid amount for acting as a collecting agent for the year 1999- 2000. The deposit of money is confirmed by the receipts which were issued in favour of the petitioner and have been brought on record as annexures-3(a) and (b). Vide memo no. 263 dated 5.4.1999 the then Market Secretary appointed the petitioner as the agent for collecting market fee and ground rent for the period 1.4.1999 to 2 31.3.2000 but for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities no final agreement could be signed between the parties. On failure to enjoy the fruits of the bid and the settlement, the petitioner moved the authorities for refund of the amount. Several communications were made even legal notice sent but when no response came from the respondents the writ application came to be filed. During the pendency of the writ application it seems that Certificate case no. 2/2002-2003 was initiated against the petitioner at the instance of the respondents in other words the dispute has been raised with regard to claim of the petitioner for refund and the claim of the market committee to demand the balance amount of the settlement. In that view of the matter, the Court is not willing to pass any order in favour of the petitioner at this stage. Petitioner is well advised to contest the certificate case and if not satisfied may move an appropriate forum for appropriate relief depending on the outcome of such litigation. The writ application is disposed of with the above liberty. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 5.12.2008 AI/NAFR