Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3065 of 2015 =========================================================== Praveen Kumar, S/o Suresh Prasad, Resident of - G.B. Road, Gaya, P.S.- Kotwali, District - Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through Director Mid-day Meal Scheme, Bihar, Patna.

2. District Magistrate, Gaya.

3. District Development Commissioner, Gaya.

4. District Planning Officer, Gaya.

5. District Education Officer, Gaya.

6. In-charge Officer, Mid-day Meal Scheme, Gaya. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Prawesh kumar, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocates For the State : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, G.P. 7 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-03-2015 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner claims to have supplied steel plates and glasses in different blocks after receiving work order contained in Annexure 1 issued by the District Magistrate, Gaya. Thereafter, it appears that some enquiry was conducted and ultimately vide Annexure 3 dated 09.12.2014 the District Magistrate has issued an office order lifting the ban on execution of Mid Day Meal scheme. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his admitted dues of Rs.43,39,920/- are not being paid.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3065 of 2015 dt.03-03-2015 2 / 2 In view of the aforesaid submission, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Gaya to ensure payment of the petitioner with respect to his admitted dues, if any, and if the supply by him has been found to be in accordance with the work order and to the satisfaction of the competent authority, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and also to take a decision with respect to the issue raised by the petitioner that he has already purchased the articles for supply as per the work but he is not being allowed to complete it even after Annexure 3 having been passed by the District Magistrate. Such decision should also be taken by him with respect to that in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Sanjay-II/- U