IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11021 of 2009 Jay Mangal Bhagat, son of Late Yugeshwar Bhagat, resident of Village- Lalpura, Police Station-Saraiya, Post Office- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur……………………………………………………...Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Block Development Officer, Saraiya Block, Muzaffarpur………………………………………………Respondents. 3. 14.09.2011. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the letter no. 1030 dated 19.06.2009 as contained in Annexure- 6, whereby the Block Development Officer, Saraiya, directed the petitioner to transfer the left over grains to the Programme Officer, Saraiya, for the use in the Narega Scheme and in case of the grains having perished, the cost of the grains, at the A.P.L. rates, be deposited in the Narega Account. The prayer has further been made to fix the responsibility after giving the petitioner appropriate opportunity and after verification of stock and verification of fact that the grains could not be distributed due to non-issuance of certain instructions by the respondent authorities. 2 It appears that the petitioner being the P. D. S. dealer was entrusted in 2004-05 under “Samuchit Gramin Rozgar Yojna, Kam Ke Badle Anaj Yojana etc.,(food for work) and the grains were to be distributed by the representatives of the Panchayats. The P.D.S. dealers were only required to lift the grains against the allotment and to store them for the purpose of distribution. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the food grains were distributed as per the permits issued from time to time and the remaining food grains perished and decayed due to prolonged storage, as no permits were issued for distribution of the grains. The counter affidavit has been filed by the State to the effect that the grains were entrusted to the petitioner, hence he was liable to return the same or to return the value of the grains. The counter affidavit does not reflect the actual amount of the grains entrusted to the petitioner or any verification or any statement to the effect that before issuance of the impugned order as contained 3 in Annexures 5 and 6 dated 20.05.2009 and 19.06.2009, respectively, any opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case. Similar matter was considered in C.W.J.C. Nos. 6690 of 2010, 16366 of 2009 and 13973 of 2009 which were disposed off in following terms:- “This Court, therefore, directs that no coercive action shall be taken in pursuance of the order dated 12.08.2009 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Munger. The order is directed to be treated as a show cause notice. Let the petitioner file their reply within a maximum period of six weeks whereafter the Deputy Development Commissioner shall pass final reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. If no cause is shown by the petitioner within the time indicated, the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed”. In the circumstances, let the letters contained in Annexures 5 and 6 dated 20.05.2009 and 19.06.2009, respectively, to be treated as the show 4 cause notice in like terms. The petitioner shall file his reply within a period of six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. If the petitioner seeks any further information and or documents from the respondents to enable him to fortify his reply to the show cause notice, the respondents shall adequately respond to the same, unless the information sought is considered not germane to the controversy or is already available with the petitioner, by a reasoned and speaking order. Since the impugned order has been directed to be treated as a show cause notice, the question of any coercive action thereunder, does not arise at this stage till a final adjudication is not done. The writ application, with consent of the parties, is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)