M/S Rajeev Transport Coal Agency v. Bihar State Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4219 of 2016 ====================================================== M/s. Rajeev Transport Coal Agency through its Power of Attorney holder Vivek Kumar Singh Son of Rabindra Singh Resident of Suresh Colony, P.S. Sadar Hazaribagh, District - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through the Managing Director

2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Bihar, Patna

3. The District Manager, State Food Corporation Ara, Bhojpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Deo, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 29-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. The petitioner seeks quashing the order dated 5.2.2016 passed by the Managing Director of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation This is the second round of litigation as the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 11520 of 2015 assailing the order dated 6.7.2015 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation by which he had cancelled the agreement with the petitioner with immediate effect after considering the irregularity having been committed by the petitioner in the work of transportation of paddy and rice and for

Patna High Court CWJC No.4219 of 2016 (3) dt.29-08-2016 violating the terms of the agreement. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.12.2015 on the leave sought by learned counsel for the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director for redressal of its grievances, which was allowed. Thereafter the impugned order in the present matter has been assailed.

In the impugned order dated 5.2.2016 the Managing Director has considered that nothing new has been brought on the record or submitted by the petitioner after the passing of the order dated 6.7.2015 by which the agreement of the petitioner has been cancelled and thus there was no occasion to take a different view in the matter.

In view of the fact that challenge to the earlier order was not taken to its logical conclusion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/- U