IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18325 of 2009 1. SIDDHI SADAN GIRI S/O LATE JAGARUNATH GIRI R/O VILL.- MADUD, P.S.- KHUDAGANJ, BLOCK- ISLAMPUR, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA 5. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, NALANDA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ISLAMPUR, NALANDA 7. BIHAR STATE COOPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, RAJGIR THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER ----------- 2. 14.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The relief prayed for is to direct the respondents to release the amount of subsidy grant i.e. Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the petitioner through the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Rajgir for purchase of a Power Trailer (an Agriculture Machine) sought for in the year 2006-07, rejected by order dated 3.10.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he made an application for the purpose duly recommended by the Block Development Officer, Islampur by Letter No. 1380 dated 28.8.2006 forwarded to the District Agriculture Officer, Nalanda. The latter by his letter no. 1145 dated 2.9.2006 call for a report from the Bank. The Bank on 26.9.2006 in the required format furnished the information. Thereafter the petitioner continuously kept requesting the District Agriculture Officer to act for release 2 of the loan. Only promises were forthcoming. Belatedly the District Agriculture Officer call for certain clarification from the Bank which was also given by the Bank on 19.5.2007 by letter No. 17 notwithstanding of all which loan was yet to be sanctioned. The impugned order dated 3.10.2009 does not deal with the aforesaid documents of the Block Development Officer, the District Agriculture Officer, the information furnished by the Bank but proceeds to reject it on the premise of a letter dated 8.9.2009 of the District Agriculture Officer, which appears to have been submitted only after the petitioner represented before the Chief Ministers Secretariat. The ground for rejection that the claim was stale is arbitrary and appears contrary to records. Counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. More than one year has passed since the writ petition was filed. Two copies of the writ petition were served on the State, the second to facilitate the filing of the counter affidavit. The Court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter. Let the Joint Agriculture Director consider the claims of the petitioner in light of the present discussions and then pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a maximum period of two 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If he proposes to deny the petitioner the relief on any other ground then that mentioned in the order dated 3.10.2009, he is obliged to furnish the same to the petitioner, give him an opportunity to meet the same, fully discuss the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, District Agriculture Officer and the Bank and then pass a reasoned and speaking order. The writ application stands disposed. After the order had been passed learned counsel for the State submits that a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 5 on 27.4.2010, after serving a copy on the other side. The same is however not available on the record. The office shall place it on record. The Court therefore requested the counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal. The Court has gone through the counter affidavit. It is very casual and of no help in adjudication of the matter at all affecting the conclusions already arrived at by the Court in the discussion aforesaid. A vague statement has been made in Paragraph-8 that the Machine had been purchased before the decision of the competent authority. What were the recommendations of the Block Development Officer dated 28.8.2006, of the District Agriculture officer dated 4 2.9.2006, what were the deficiencies found in the recommendation of the Bank dated 26.9.2006 etc. are all matter which have been conveniently glossed over in the counter affidavit. The Court therefore does not find any reason to vary the order which had been dictated earlier. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)