IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7664 of 2008 1) Ram Nagina Singh, son of Late Basudeo Singh, village Koriagawan, PS Kochas, Dist. Rohtas. 2) Harishankar choudhary, 3) Sudarshan Chaudhary, both sons of Late Ram Naresh Choudhary, 4) Sudama Choudhary, son of Late Sheo Lakhan Choudhary, 5) Ram Bachan Choudhary, son of Late Raghupati Choudhary 6) Mukha Choudhary, son of Late Ram Bachan Choudhary, all residents of village Sarosher, PS Kochas, Dist. Rohtas. 7) Badari Singh, 8) Ram Kedar Singh, both sons of Ram Charitar Singh, both of village Rupibandh, PS Kochas, Dist. Rohtas – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 3) The Supdt. Of Police, Rohtas. 4) The Dist. Supply Officer, Rohtas. 5) The Dist. Agriculture Officer, Rohtas. 6) The Block Agriculture Officer, Kochas, Rohtas. 7) The Officer Incharge, Parsathua, PS Kochas, Dist. Rohtas – Respondents 6 4.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners, eight in number, are farmers and residents of villages as mentioned against their names in the district of Rohtas. A truck carrying 360 bags of fertilizers was seized on 15.11.2007 by the Sub Inspector of Out Post Kochas. It has been stated at paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the petitioner have collectively purchased these bags of fertilizers and were transporting them on a truck from Mohania. Individually the number of bags purchased by the eight petitioners have also been described at paragraph no.8. This writ petition has been filed for release of the seized fertilizers and for quashing of the orders, dated 26.12.2007 and 11.4.2008. By order, dated 26.12.2007 the District Magistrate has ordered that since fertilizers are perishable items, they should be sold in the market and the money deposited in the treasury. The District 2 Magistrate has also referred to a document apparently produced by the driver of the truck which shows that instead of fertilizers, the permit produced by the truck driver indicates that the permit was for carrying cement. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the truck driver has produced challans, not related to the items he was carrying for these petitioners. Subsequently the order that followed indicates that the petitioners appeared suo moto in the proceeding. However, they were not heard with respect to the merits of their claims. By order, dated 11.4.2008 the District Magistrate sought to implement the earlier order. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 5 indicates that the fertilizers have been sold and the money deposited in the treasury. The question before this court is whether the action of the District Magistrate is justified? Since, the petitioners appeared in the case and claimed that they are the bona fide purchasers of the fertilizers in question, they have the receipts and are farmers, and besides this they also have challans which would indicate that there was due permission to carry fertilizers from Mohania, they ought to have been heard and documents examined before any order was passed by the District Magistrate. It is further submitted that there is no bar for the farmers to keep fertilizers for agriculture purposes. The bar that has been imposed by memo no. 8970, dated 13.1.1993 published in the gazette notification which indicates that small dealers would be permitted to store asmuch as 10 M. tons of fertilizers for the purpose of sale in the 3 market. However, there is nothing to indicate that the farmers need to have a license or there is any bar in holding or storing fertilizers. Learned counsel for the State on the basis of the counter affidavit submits that the challan etc. produced by the petitioners is a fabricated document. In the opinion of this court such a statement is pre- judging the issue. Without verifying whether the petitioners were bona fide purchasers from Mohania or whether the challan was duly issued by the authorities concerned, it cannot be held that the documents are fabricated. In the facts of this case it would be incumbent upon the District Magistrate to verify the documents after hearing the petitioners pass appropriate orders in this case. In case it is found that the documents are genuine, the petitioners would be entitled for the refund of the money which has been deposited in the treasury after selling the fertilizers. The petitioners are further directed to bring this order to the notice of the District Magistrate, Rohtas for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law and the observations made by this court within a reasonable time and preferably within a period of six months since it involves verification of the documents. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)