IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6014 of 2010 1. Pramod Kumar Mishra S/O Late Rajvansh Mishra R/O Vill.- Dhankutwa, P.O. Sariswa Bazaar, P.S.- Majhaulia, Distt.- West Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, At Bettiah 3. The Block Development Officer, Majhaulia Block, West Champaran 4. The Block Supply Officer, Majhaulia Block, West Champaran 5. The Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti Of Majhaulia Block, West Champaran 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Barwa Semraghat, Majhaulia Block, West Champaran ------------------------- 5 15.11.2011 Heard Mr. Deo Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha, learned A.C. to S.C.4 for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Block Development Officer, Majhaulia Block, District West Champaran, placed at Annexure-4 series whereby the Dealers under the Public Distribution System (Control), Order 2001 have been directed to deposit the price of the foodgrains received by them under the Sampurna Grameen Rozgar Yojna (SGRY) failing which an F.I.R. would be instituted against them. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No.4 of the list placed at Annexure-4/1 to the writ petition. The writ petition having been filed on 06.04.2010 after service of two copies of the writ petition in the office of the Advocate General, no instructions has been received by learned counsel for the State despite the pendency of the proceedings and 2 the various orders passed requiring filing of the counter affidavit. By the last order passed on 20.10.2011, it was clearly stipulated that if no counter affidavit is filed by the next date of hearing fixed on 11.11.2011 the matter would proceed on the basis of materials available on record of the proceedings. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the State submits that despite this position having been communicated to the respondent No.3, the Block Development Officer, Majhaulia Block, West Champaran, he has simply informed that the counter affidavit had been forwarded for vetting by the District Magistrate, West Champaran. This Court cannot wait endlessly providing luxury time to the respondents to respond to the issues raised before this Court more particularly, when the matter has remained pending since more than one and half years. Considering the helplessness shown by the learned counsel for the State in absence of proper instructions from the concerned authorities of the State Government, this Court has proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of materials available on record. The brief facts of the matter is that the petitioner is a Dealer under the Public Distribution System (Control), Order 2001 having his PDS shop situated within the Majhaulia Block, District West Champaran. Under the Scheme of the State Government by the name of Sampurna Grameen Rozgar Yojna the petitioner had 3 received 614 quintals of rice for distribution amongst the beneficiaries in terms of the permits to be issued by the authorities of the State Government at District Level as also the local bodies. The petitioner a Dealer under the „Order‟ could not distribute or sell the said rice on his own volition in absence of proper permits by the concerned authorities. By reason of the irregular issuance of permits, a quantity of only 176.26 quintals of rice could be distributed amongst the beneficiaries and the balance remained lying in the stock. The rice in question had been received by the petitioner in between the year 2002-2005. The rice being susceptible to natural decay and decomposition started rotting by the passage of time but the petitioner in absence of permits, could neither distribute the same nor were they conferred with powers of disposal of these foodgrains. It is after a lapse of almost 5 years since the receipt of the rice in question that the respondents through the Block Development Officer, Majhaulia rose from their slumber to take account of the balance grains and for this purpose, the impugned notice have been issued. This issue came up for consideration before this Court in C.W.J.C.No.8929 of 2010 and other analogous cases. This Court upon consideration of the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State disposed of the writ petition in the following terms. “ Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the materials on record of the proceedings as well as the orders passed by this Court in 4 other cases, these batch of writ petitions are also disposed of with direction to the authorities concerned issuing the notice, to treat the demand so raised under the impugned orders appended in the writ petitions, as a show cause notice and the petitioners would file their respective reply before the concerned authorities issuing the said notice together with details of the rice received, rice distributed under permits and the quantity of rice left undistributed for want of permits. The petitioners would be at liberty to enclose any other supportive materials demonstrating their bonafides and the fact that the left over rice in question had got decomposed by the passage of time. Upon submission of the reply by the petitioners, the authority concerned would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. In the meanwhile no coercive steps for realization of the amount in question shall be taken against the petitioners. It goes without saying that in case the authority concerned so chooses to reject the reply advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the same should be done by a speaking order to be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners”. Regard being had to the order passed in the batch of writ petitions referred to above, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgment and order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8929 of 2010 and other analogous cases. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)