IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6690 of 2010 1. MD. ABUL S/O LATE SK. ISH MOHAMMAD R/O VILL.- NARKATIA, P.S.- PUROSHOTTAMPUR, BLOCK- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 2. ABDUL HAMID ANSARI S/O LATE ALI HUSSAIN ANSARI R/O VILL.- SAKRAUL, P.S.- INARWA, BLOCK- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 3. KANHAIYA PRASAD S/O LATE MAHADEO SAH R/O VILL.- BASTHA, P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 4. CHANDRIKA SAH S/O LATE NAGA SAH R/O VILL.- MAINATAND, P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 5. SURUJ SAH S/O LATE BUDDHAN SAH R/O VILL.- RAMPURWA, P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 6. JAINABTARA W/O LATE HAKIM MIAN R/O VILL.- RAMPURWA, P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 7. RAJBANSHI MAHTO S/O LATE KAMAL MAHTO R/O VILL.- PIRARI, P.S.- INARAWA, BLOCK- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 8. BINDESHWARI PRASAD S/O LATE BUDHAN SAH R/O VILL.- RAMPURWA, P.S.- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 9. JANARDAN PRASAD S/O LATE DHANIDEYAL MAHTO R/O VILL.- MARJADAWA, P.S.- PUROSHOTTAMPUR, BLOCK- MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MAINATAND, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2. 04.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are stated to be P.D.S. dealers. They were given certain grains for distribution under the Samakit Gramin Rozgar Yojana. The distribution was to be done by them based on permits that may have been issued by the authorities for the purpose. The grains were given to 2 them in between the year 2001 to 2006. They are aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2010 directing them to return the balance amount of food grains or deposit the costs of the grains at the Above Poverty Line Level Rate failing which action for cancellation of their licence shall be taken and an F.I.R. lodged. Learned counsel submits that the food grains were distributed as per permits issued from time to time and the remaining food grains withered and decayed by long storage as no permits were issued for distribution with regard to them. He relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16366 of 2009 directing notices of the present nature to be considered as a show cause notice, which had to be replied by persons like the petitioners within six weeks whereafter a final decision had been directed to be taken afresh. Learned counsel for the State relies heavily on the counter affidavit, more particularly Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the same but is unable to demonstrate to the Court any material from the aforesaid Paragraphs of the total amount of food grains originally given to the petitioners, the amount of food grains for which permits had been issued, the amount of food grains which remained undistributed 3 and in respect of which the petitioners may have remained answerable. Perhaps, if the Block Development Officer, Mainatand, West Champaran, had been a little more cautious about the discharge of his duties and had filed a proper counter affidavit bringing on record materials that the aforesaid procedure had been followed notwithstanding which the petitioners refused to cooperate and furnish information, rather than confronting the Court with his own conclusions, the matter could have been appropriately disposed off today one way or the other. In the manner of the counter affidavit filed, the Court has no option but to direct the impugned order dated 4.3.2010 to be treated as a show cause notice. Let the petitioners file their reply to the same within six weeks from today when they shall adequately disclose the amount of food grains allotted, those for which permits had been issued and the information given by them for the balance amount whereafter fresh orders may be passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order of such cause been shown by the petitioner as similarly 4 directed in C.W.J.C. No. 16366 of 2009. In view of the fact that the impugned order has been directed to be treated as a show cause notice, till final adjudication is not done, the question of any coercive action against the petitioners thereunder does not arise. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)