IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1799 of 2011 CHHOTELAL SINGH, SON OF LATE TARNI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHANDAJORE, P.S.- ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADA :---- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 5. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAWADA. 6. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, NAWADA. 7. DISTRICT ENGINEER, DISTRICT BOARD/DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAWADA. 8. SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAULI, DISTRICT NAWADA. 9. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 10. BHLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 11. MUKHIA, KOSHI RUKHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, BLOCK ROH, DISTRICT- NALANDA. 12. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KOSHI RUKHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.S. ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADA :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 04.02.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a licensee under the Public Distribution System. He has filed this writ petition assailing the contents of direction contained in Memo No. 143 dated 15.01.2011, Annexure-1, whereunder the Licensing Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli has asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,45410/- as the cost of the food grain at the rate on which food grain is distributed to persons who are above the poverty line failing which legal action shall be 2 taken against him. The food grain was kept in his godown for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 for distribution under Rural Employment Programme. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before issue of the aforesaid direction petitioner was never asked to show cause. It is also submitted that had the petitioner been given opportunity of being heard, he would have explained to the Licensing Authority that the food grains were kept under instructions of the Licensing Authority and soon after the scheme whereunder the food grains were kept in the godown of the petitioner came to close after 1st April, 2006 he requested the authorities to take away the remaining food grains otherwise the same is likely to be destroyed as the food grains have been kept under open sky for want of space in the godown of the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner is not responsible in any way for the loss caused to the exchequer. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that as directions contained in notice dated 15.01.2011 has been issued without giving the petitioner chance of being heard it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner to file representation before the Licensing Authority, Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli against the direction contained in Memo No. 3 143 dated 15.01.2011, Annexure-1, which should be considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli, in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)