IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8975 of 2011 1. Manoj Kumar, son of late Brijnandan Singh, resident of Village Pravin Chak, P.S. Daniyanwa, District- Patna. 2. Amirak Kumar, son of Sri Krishnandan Prasad, resident of Village Dhanraj Tola, P.S. Khusrupur, District- Patna. 3. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, son of Kapil Prasad, resident of Village Kolhar, P.S. Fatuha, District- Patna. 4. Basudeo Mahato, son of Mahabir Mahato, resident of Village- Sonaru, P.S. Fatuha, District-Patna. 5. Baleshwar Prasad, son of Ram Chandar Singh, resident of Village-Khirodharpur, P.S. Khushrupur, District- Patna. ------------ Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. Principal Secretary, agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Agriculture Department, New Sachiwalay, Patna. 4. Director, Agriculture Department, New Sachiwalaya, Patna ----- Respondents. ---------- 2. 19.5.2011 Heard Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh for the petitioners, and Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.6 for the respondents. This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been preferred for a direction to the respondents to prohibit sale of ten out of the thirteen varieties of paddy in the State of Bihar in view of the recommendations of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’). The petitioners contend that the following thirteen varieties of rice have been the subject matter of research by the 2 Council, three of which, namely, Sl. No. 3, 7 and 13 have been selected for marketing and sale in the State of Bihar. 6-7 10 o"kksZ ds vUnj Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk vf/klwfpr ladj /kku izHksnksa dh lwph fuEu gSA Øe la0 iztkfr dk uke foekspu ¼foeqfDr½ dk o"kZ 1 Ih0 ,0 & 6444 2001 2 ih0 vkj0 ,p0 &10 2001 3 ih0 vkj0 ,p0 122 ¼xaxk½ 2001 4 Mh0vkj0vkj0,p0 &2 2005 5 lh0 vkj0 ,p0 vkj & 7 ¼vt;½ 2005 6 lh0 vkj0 ,p0 vkj0 5 ¼jkty{eh½ 2005 7 ts0 ds0 vkj0 ,p0 401 2007 8 lh0 vks0 vkj0 ,p0 &3 2006 9 th0 ds0 5003 2008 10 Mh0 vkj0 ,p0 & 775 2009 11 ih0 ,0 lh0 & 835 2009 12 ih0 ,0 lh & 837 2009 13 ;w0 ,l0 & 312 2010 The petitioners complain that, contrary to the conclusions of the research work of the Council, the State of Bihar is attempting to market and sell all the thirteen varieties of the paddy in the State of Bihar to the detriment of the gullible farmers of the State of Bihar. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the State of Bihar has prepared a scheme known as Þladj /kku izR;{k.k dk;ZØe dk dk;kZUo;u vuqns'kÞ, 3 for demonstration and education of the farmers of the State of Bihar with respect to ladj /kku The aforesaid paragraph 6.7 is part of this scheme. It appears to us on a perusal of the scheme that the State of Bihar has decided to propagate market, and educate the farmers of the State of Bihar with respect to the 13 varieties of Shankar Dhan, which appears to us to be high- yielding variety of paddy, with detailed assistance of the State of Bihar. The aforesaid paragraph 6.7 incorporates thirteen different varieties of Shankar Dhan. We are unable to decipher from a perusal of the scheme that only three of the varieties of ladj /kku has been selected by State Government, and the rest ten varieties are excluded from the scheme. There is also no official report on record to show that the Council has recommended only three varieties of ladj /kku for marketing and sale in the State of Bihar. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( S. P. Singh, J.)