IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5025 of 2010 1. Surendar Ram S/O Late Mukhlal Ram R/O Village- Danapur, P.S - Manjhagarh, District - Gopalganj Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through The Collector, Gopalganj Null District - Gopalganj 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj 3. The Block Development Officer, Manjhagarh District - Gopalganj 4. The District Supply Officer, Gopalganj 5. The Block Supply Officer, Manjhagarh, District - Gopalganj ----------- 3 04.08.2011 Heard Mr. Dhanajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gautam Bose, learned A.A.G.8 for the State. The writ petition has been filed questioning the notice dated 20.01.2010 bearing Memo No.10 as contained in Annexure-4 whereby the petitioner along with some other dealers under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 have been directed to submit the Stock Register in relation to the food grains allotted to them under the Sampoorn Gramin Rozgar Yojana. A further direction is contained in the said notice that if the petitioner fails to respond to the notice and does not provide with the information required under the notice, the author of the notice i.e. Block Supply Officer, Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj would take steps for suspension of the Licence of the dealer as also for institution of the criminal case against them. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these food grains have been received by the petitioner under the aforesaid Scheme for distribution to the deprived class on the basis of the authorization made by the appropriate authorities of the Panchayat, the Panchayat Samiti and the Zila Parishad. He submits that no sale of these food grains could have been made by the dealers 2 and that distribution had to be done as per the requisition issued by the authorities under the local self Government. He further submits that the Sampoorn Gramin Rozgar Scheme was superseded by a subsequent Scheme of the Central Government and whereafter the distribution of the said food grains stopped. He submits that by reason of non distribution of the said food grains and by passage of time the food grains rotted and got decomposed and was not in a fit position for either distribution or sale. It is contended that the respondent – Block Development Officer without having regard to these aspect of the matter has proceeded to issue notice in question. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and in which it is stated that the petitioner being a dealer under the Public Distribution System, had a duty to keep the stock of rice in a safe position and ought to have taken steps to prevent it from getting decomposed. It is also stated that the rotting of the food grains was never intimated by the petitioner to the respondent authorities. The position is controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 20.01.2010 by furnishing the details of the food grains allotted to the petitioner, the details of the quantity of the food grains against which the permits had been issued, the amount of food grains which remained with the petitioner and got rotted by reason of passage of time and any information furnished to the authorities in this regard. Any such response to the notice should be submitted before 3 the Block Supply Officer, Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj for consideration, within a maximum period of 6 weeks from today, and whereafter fresh orders may be passed within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and/or cause shown by the petitioner in this regard. Needles to add that until the respondent No.4, Block Supply Officer, Gopalganj takes a final decision in this regard he shall take no coercive action against the petitioner. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)