Trilok Nath Nirala v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14227 of 2017 ====================================================== Trilok Nath Nirala Son of- Baiju Rai @ Bidyanath Rai, Resident of VillageBathna, P.O.- Motipur, P.S.- Motipur, Anchal- Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.
The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
4.
The Deputy Development Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 5.
The Sub Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur West. 6.
The District Supply Officer, Muzaffarpur.
7.
The Block Development Officer, Motipur Block, Muzaffarpur. 8.
The Block Supply Officer, Motipur Block, Muzaffarpur. 9.
The Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Raj Bariyarpur Purvi, Motipur Block, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nalin Kumar, Adv. With Mr. Subodh Kumar, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Rewti Kant Suman, Ac to Sc11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-03-2023
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the order dated 21.08.2017, whereby the petitioner was asked to appear before the audit team, appointed by Hon'ble Justice Uday Sinha, Judicial Enquiry Commission for verification of stock, failing which the F.I.R. was to be registered against him.
3. The Commission was appointed to look into the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14227 of 2017(2) dt.20-03-2023 2/2 grievances with respect to the P.D.S. distribution and also with regard to grievance of individuals as against the P.D.S. dealers.
4. Power of search was also provided to the Commission and the Commission has directed the audit team to conduct the enquiry on its behalf. In the said respect the petitioner was asked to present himself for verification of his stock and his registers. There is no occasion for the petitioner to shy away from such an enquiry. No right is created in favour of the petitioner as he is a licence holder and he is required to abide by the instructions issued from time to time.
5. The contention raised by the petitioner of having kept his stock in order, has nothing to do with the enquiry and in the enquiry being satisfied the concerned authority about the said purpose.
6. The writ petition is wholly frivolous and accordingly dismissed.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/- Item No. 15 U