IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.990 of 2006 Braj Bhushan Prasad Yadav, son of Sri Kapildeo Rai, resident of village Rupchapra, P.O. Rupchapra, P.S. Sahebganj, District Muzaffarpur, presently residing in the Mussallahpur, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna………………………………………...Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Managing Director. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Musallahpur, P.S. Sultanganj, District – Patna, through its Market Secretary. 4. The Market Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Musallehpur, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna…………Respondents. With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5146 of 2010 Braj Bhushan Prasad Yadav S/O Sri Kapildeo Rai, R/O Vill.- Rupchapra, P.O.Rupchapra, P.S.Sahebganj, Distt-Muzaffarpur, Presently Residing in the Mussallahpur, P.S. Sultanganj, Distt- Patna………………………………………………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board Now Abolished, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Administrator. 4. The Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Now Abolished, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. The Sub Divisional Officer Patna City, Special Officer-Cum-Special Officer Agriculture Produce Market Committee, (Now Dissolved) Mussallahpur, Patna…………………………………Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr. Sajeev Kr. Mishra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shashi Shekhar, AC to SC-9 ---------------------------------- 06/ 21.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents-State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. Both the writ petitions have been heard together and - 2 - are being decided by this common order as subject matter of the cases as well as the petitioner is the same. 3. In C.W.J.C. No.990 of 2006 the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) For direction upon the respondents to take necessary steps for repairing two chambers of Cold Storage situated in Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Musallahpur as the same is unreasonable restrictions upon the petitioner which is contrary to the provision of Article 19(1)G of the Constitution of India. (ii) For direction upon the respondents to deduct the amount of annual rent proportionately in the facts and circumstances of the case and pending hearing of this writ petition the respondents be directed not to take coercive action against the petitioner. 4. In C.W.J.C. No.5146 of 2010 the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) For quashing of the Tender Notice published in the daily newspaper, namely ‘Hindustan’ dated 15.03.2010 under the signature of Special Officer by which tender has been invited for running of the Cold Storage situated in the premises of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mussallahpur, Patna. (ii) For quashing letter dated 18.03.2010 issued under the signature of respondent Special Officer by which the petitioner was directed to vacate the cold premises and pay the remaining dues towards rent of cold storage. (iii) To consider the case of the petitioner for renewal/extension of lease agreement executed between the petitioner and the Market Committee, Mussallahpur in the year 2005. (iv) That during the pendency of the writ petition interim order of stay of the tender notice to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 3 - 5. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the period of lease between the respondents and the petitioner has expired and the petitioner has already vacated the premises in question, whereafter another person has been selected by the authorities concerned in whose favour lease has been granted. 6. In the said circumstances, the only question which remains to be decided is the adjustment of money between the petitioner and the respondent-Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mussallehpur which after the repeal of Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 by the Act of 2006, is represented by its Administrator of the Board, who is impleaded as respondent no.4 to the second writ petition. 7. In the said circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his claim for redressal of his grievance regarding adjustment before the Administrator of the Board. If such an application is filed by the petitioner along with a copy of this order within four weeks from today, the said authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and shall decide it by a speaking order within four months thereafter. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)