Subhash Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10018 of 2018 ====================================================== Subhash Ram son of Sri Sakaldeo Ram resident of village - Sishwa, Bhumihar, Post - Shivrajpur, Prakhand - Yogapatti, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal & Fisheries Resources Department (Directorate of Cow Development), Government of Bihar, Patna 2.
The Director, Animal and Fisheries Resources Department (Directorate of Cow Development), Government of Bihar, Patna 3.
The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4.
Deputy Development Commissioner, West Champaran, Bettiah. 5.
The District Animal Husbandary Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. 6.
The District Veterinary Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Sajid Salim Khan (SC- 25) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29-07-2025
1. The writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) To direct the respondents to pay grant in-aid on purchase of twenty cows and thereby cost occurred in construction of cattle-shed amounting Rs.7,85,320/- along with interest as per allotment by respondents for the year
2/6 2014-15 for which duly represented by the petitioner.
(ii) To grant any other relief/s for which the petitioner be found entitled in the eye of law."
2. The brief facts culled out of the writ petition are that the 2nd respondent/Director, Animal and Fisheries Resources Department (Directorate of Cow Development), vide Memo No. 212 dated 29.01.2015, addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates of various districts in the State of Bihar. Through the said communication, the balance amount of sanctioned funds for the Financial Year 2012-2013, as grant-in-aid, was made available for disbursement to beneficiaries who had purchased cows and constructed cattle sheds at their own cost in terms of the scheme framed by the Government. Similarly, for the Financial Year 2014-2015, funds were also made available for the same purpose. It is further stated that the petitioner was permitted to purchase 20 cows at his own cost under the Scheme vide Letter No. DD/66 dated 18.02.2015 issued by the 5th respondent/District Animal Husbandry
3/6 Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, vide Letter No. 87 dated 20.01.2016, addressed to the District Animal Husbandry Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah/5th respondent, asking to establish dairy units, comprising 20 cows under the Integrated Cow Development Scheme, in accordance with the decision taken by the Government. In compliance to it, the 5th respondent addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent, requesting for release of the grant-in-aid to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, specifying the admissible amounts along with relevant claim documents.
3. It is the specific contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have failed to pay the admissible amount to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a complaint, before the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, along with details of the expenditure incurred by him for purchase of cows and cost of construction, amounting to Rs. 87,16,500/-. However, the Public Grievance
4/6 Redressal Officer, vide order dated 30.03.2017, directed the petitioner to make a representation before the 3rd and 1st respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a 1st appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Pramandal-cum-Appellate Authority. The said appeal was rejected, affirming the decision of the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, West Champaran, and further the petitioner was directed to ventilate his grievance before the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a 2nd appeal before the 1st respondent, enclosing all relevant claim documents. However, the said authority also affirmed the order of the first appellate authority and similarly directed the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for redressal of his grievance.
4. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent on 30.08.2017, enclosing all necessary documents seeking for payment of the grant-in-aid. However, the respondents have failed to
5/6 release the payment for which he was constrained to file the present writ petition.
5. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
6. The Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner never made any representation to the 2nd respondent to consider his grievances.
7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the representation dated 30.08.2017 was addressed to the Minister, Animal and Fisheries Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, but not to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent had no opportunity to consider or decide the petitioner's claim.
8. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to submit an appropriate representation before the 2nd respondent for redressal of his grievance.
6/6
9. Permission is granted accordingly to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the 2nd respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with all relevant documents. In turn, the 2nd respondent shall consider the representation and after giving an opportunity of hearing, shall decide the matter on merits within three months from the date of receipt of such representation, in accordance with law.
10. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) vinita/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 01.08.2025 Transmission Date