IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5402 of 2009 KRISHNA MURARI BHARTIA, S/O-Shanker Prasad Bhartia, resident of village-Kot Bazar, P.S.+District-Sitamarhi. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply(now known as Food & Consumer Protection Department), Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, Sitamarhi. ……..Respondents. ----------- 02. 28.04.2009 The petitioner is a wholesale dealer of sugar. In the year 1999 petitioner was asked by the District Administration to lift levy sugar from the go- down of Hari Nagar Sugar Mill and bring it to his place for distribution to retail dealer under the Public Distribution System at the rate fixed by the Administration. The rate of levy sugar at which it was released from Hari Nagar Sugar Mill was increased by the Central Government but when petitioner distributed the said consignment, he was not allowed to charge the increased price. He was told that the difference would be paid by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation or other State agencies. Petitioner made repeated representations and twice came to this Court. Ultimately during pendency of the second writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 9153 of 2007, 2 petitioner was at last after eight years paid his due amount of Rs. 1,60,566.24 paise. That disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to move Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar for compensatory interest. Petitioner accordingly moved. The Secretary has rejected petitioner’s claim by order dated 01.04.2009 as contained in Annexure-7 which is under challenge. A reference to the order would show the clear perversity contained therein. First the Secretary states that when petitioner was asked to lift levy sugar on payment to be made by the Collector in the said letter, there was no assurance of time within which payment would be made by the Collector. In opinion of this Court that did not mean that the payment to the petitioner could be withheld ad-infinitum. The attitude of the Respondent Secretary is perverse on the face of it and can not be accepted in a State governed by Constitution and in a democracy. In this connection I may only refer to Section 32 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 which in clear terms says that “unless otherwise agreed, delivery of goods and payments of the price are concurrent conditions” There can not be any dispute that Sales of 3 Goods Act binds the State as much as petitioner. As per Secretary’s own showing, there was nothing to the contrary and thus payment and delivery had to be concurrent and therefore there was a legal obligation on the State to ensure immediate payment to the petitioner. The perversity is further apparent when the Secretary states in his order that the petitioner did not produce any material to show that he made any demand earlier. The records of the writ proceedings were before the Secretary, the order in the writ proceedings was before the Secretary, all these contain enough materials including legal notices sent by the petitioner demanding payment. What else was petitioner required to produce, this Court wonders ? When there is a legal obligation on the State to be discharged then petitioner does not have to approach the State with a begging bowl in a civilized society governed by rule of law and Constitution. It is for the State to discharge its legal obligation on its own which the State miserably failed much to the detriment of the petitioner who was made a victim of circumstances beyond his control and created by the State. I therefore, set aside the order of the 4 Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply and remand the matter to the Secretary to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with the observations as made above. In case the Secretary now feels that interest by was of compensation for delayed payment without reasonable cause is due, he would take into account prevailing bank rates for that period and award interest accordingly. The order of the Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply, dated 01.04.2009 is thus set aside and the Respondent Secretary is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter within a period of one month from the date copy of this order is filed before him. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)