IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16956 of 2009 1. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE BHUPNARAYAN SHARMA R/O VILL- GOORIGAWA, P.O. RAYPUR MAHADEO, P.S. SARAIYA, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF REVENUE, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA-1 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPUTY COLLECTOR MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER WEST SUB-DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PUROO, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. H.K. Thakur, Adv. For the State:- Mr. A. Amanullah, SC-17 -------------- 2. 29.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2009 by the Incharge Deputy Collector, Disaster Management Cell, Muzaffarpur directing recovery of Rs. 7068.16/- for the first month and Rs. 7000/- per month thereafter for recovery of advance of Rs. 108063.16/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier also show cause notice had been given to which the petitioner had replied and ultimately in this manner on 31.10.2009, the petitioner had represented that till such time that the report of the Block Development Officer called for earlier and which was still not being made available was not received it was not proper to effect the deduction in question. Counsel for the State from Annexure-11 dated 2 31.10.2009, of a communication from the Block Development Officer at Paroo submitted that it appears that the petitioner was not cooperating before the Block Development Officer to enable him to submit the report. In the nature of the controversy, the consequences upon the petitioner, this Court shall be required to call upon the respondents to file a counter affidavit. To keep the writ petition alive with a lis, it shall require stay of the operation of the impugned order. The writ petition comes up years and years latter as today the Court is hearing writ applications of the year, 2003. This Court is satisfied that at this stage, if the impugned order had been speaking in nature disclosing application of mind to the facts and materials and the cause shown by the petitioner, it would have greatly facilitated disposal of the writ application on merits either ways. This Court is therefore not persuaded to keep the matter pending for the aforesaid discussion. The order dated 18.9.2009 is only directed to be kept in abeyance prospectively on the principles of status quo. Respondent no. 3 is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order adequately considering the cause shown by the petitioner afresh when the present order dated 18.9.2009 shall merge 3 into the same positively or negatively, as the case may be. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to non-payment of subsistence allowance with regard to his suspension and represents, it is expected that the respondents shall fulfil their statutory obligations, if subsisting under the provisions of the Bihar Service Code. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)