IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2006 of 2011 1. Janhit Bikas Morcha Rohtas At + P.O.- Jamuhar, P.S.- Dehri, Distt.- Rohtas through Its President Kumar Binod Singh S/O Jagannath Prasad Singh R/O Vill. + P.O.- Jamuhar, P.S.- Dehri, Distt.- Rohtas Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. The Cabinet Secretary, Govt. Of India, New Delhi 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, Newe Delhi 4. The Secretary, Ministry Of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Govt. of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. 7. The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal Building New Dakbunglow Road, Patna 8. The Managing Director, BISCOMAUN. Gandhi Maidan, Patna 9. The District Cooperative Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram 10. The Bihar State Pollution Control Board through its Secretary, Beltron Bhawan, Patna 11. The Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Beltron Bhawan, Patna 12. The Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 13. The Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 14. The Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Govt. Of Bihar 15. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram Respondents. ----------- 06 24.11.2011 The present writ petition in the form of public interest litigation has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to ensure procurement of paddy directly from the farmers and not from the fake rice mills as for pounding of paddy procured by farmers is in violation of orders of Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Bihar. The main grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of the District Magistrate, , Rohtas and District Supply Officer, Rohtas, the authorities have selected fake rice mills for pounding paddy in the District of Rohtas at Sasaram during the year 2009-10. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion 2 that it would suffice if liberty is granted to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation with regard to the grounds taken in the instant writ petition before Respondent nos. 2,5,10,12 and 15 and accordingly such liberty is granted. If such representation is filed the same shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. With the above observation this writ petition stands disposed of. Chandran (T.Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)