IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14389 of 2007 Golden Printing Press, D.B. Road, Saharsa, through its proprietor Md. Ejaz Alam, S/o- Haji Md. Yunus, resident of Gandhi Path, Saharsa, Post Office- Saharsa, Police Station- Saharsa, District- Saharsa-852201. ………. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Indira Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director, Welfare, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 4. The Collector, Saharsa. 5. The District Welfare Officer, Saharsa. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Navhatta Block, District- Saharsa. 7. Smt. Vinita Kumari, Child Development Project Officer, Navhatta Block, District- Saharsa. 8. Amar Yadav, Proprietor, M/S- Maa Shanti Suppliers, By Pass Road, Gangjala, Post Office- Saharsa, District- Saharsa- 852201. ……….. Respondents. ----------- 02 28.11.2008 Pursuant to order issued under Memo No. 29 dated 12th of March 2007 by the Child Development Project Officer, Navhatta, as contained in Annexure-3, the petitioner had supplied certain goods for use of Anganbari in the year 2006-07. The supplies were made as annexed by receipt granted dated 21.05.2007, but payments have yet to be made in respect thereof. In my view, it is not possible to dispose of the writ petition on merits at this stage. Basic facts have to be ascertained, as such, I direct that the petitioner should make a detailed representation making his claim before the Child Development Project Officer, Navhatta Block, District- Saharsa, who would get the matter examined within a period of two months from the order of this Court produced before her. If it is found that any payment is due to the petitioner for any goods supplied, she would ensure that the necessary funds are allocated 2 and payments made to the petitioner within a period of two months. In case, for any reason, it is decided to deny the payment to the petitioner she would communicate the order with reasons to the petitioner within the aforesaid period itself. Petitioner has made further grievance as against respondent nos. 7 and 8. In my view, the cause of action being entirely different and distinct, petitioner will have to file a separate writ petition if he intends to seek remedy as pleaded in relation to any settlement or order issued to respondent no. 8. Liberty is granted to petitioner to file a separate writ petition with regard to the said controversy. With the directions and observations as above, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)