IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3045 of 2010 1. CHHOTELAL PRASAD S/O LATE SHEO PUJAN PRASAD R/O VILL AMWA MAJHAR,P.S.BETTIAH MUFFASIL,DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER -CUM- SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER -CUM-SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ,BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED BIHAR,PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MANAGER,BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED BETTIAH,WEST CHAMPARAN 6. THE COLLECTOR -CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BETTIAH,WEST CHAMPARAN 7. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER BETTIAH SADAR,BETTIAH,WEST CHAMPARAN 8. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BETTIAH SADAR,BETTIAH,WEST CHAMPARAN 9. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER-CUM-MARKETING OFFICER MAJHAULIA,BLOCK,MAJHAULIA,WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2. 13.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner a P.D.S. dealer asserts that through different demand drafts detailed in Anneuxre- 2 of the writ petition he deposited a total amount of Rs. 1,54,075/- in July 2008, April 2009 and May 2009. But supplies were not made to him. He desires refund of the money which has got blocked. His representation evokes no response. A counter affidavit has been filed affirmed by one Gafran Ahmad described as District Supply Officer, West Champaran. The deposit by demand 2 draft is not disputed. It states that the grains have been lifted on the dates specified in Paragrpah-6 of the counter affidavit. Based on an administrative enquiry done it goes on to suggest at Paragraph-7 that the grains never came to be distributed by the petitioner, but does not disclose that if the petitioner siphoned off the food grains why no action was taken against him. The petitioner in his rejoinder has described the procedure for lifting of the food grains by a dealer at Paragraph-11 to submit that there should necessarily have to be proof of delivery in the manner laid down by the respondents as discussed therein including obtaining signatures of the petitioner on the register. Counsel for the State submits that since the procedure was not mentioned in the writ petition, there was no occasion for the deponent to deal with it in the counter affidavit. The Court considers that to be an argument in complete desperation. The District Supply Officer undoubtedly knows the procedure for upliftment of the food grains by a dealer. It was for him to disclose this procedure in Paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit and that it was followed on the dates that the food grains were lifted by the petitioner. The Court directs the Secretary, Department 3 of Fool and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar to either himself or by nominating a senior Government functionary at the Secretariat level to hold an enquiry on facts, grant due opportunity to the petitioner, call for the original records from West Champaran and then 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 before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. Needless to state that if a justification is found in the claims of the petitioner, the amount in question shall be refunded to him within the same period failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Depending on the findings in such enquiry, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary is expected to pass necessary orders for consequential action against the concerned Civil and/or Criminal in nature. The writ application stand disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)