Bhagyashree Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 5426 of 2022 ====================================================== Bhagyashree Kumari Daughter of Shri Bhagwan Rai Resident of Village - Jalilpur, Post Office - Sonpa, Police Station - Rajpur, District- Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through the Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Secretary, Department of Co- operative, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Collector, Buxar.

4.

The District Co- operative Officer, Buxar.

5.

The Block Co- operative Officer, Block - Chausa, District- Buxar. 6.

The Chairman, Rampur PACS, Block - Chausa, District - Buxar. 7.

The Proprietor, M/s Anand Enterprises (Miller), Industrial Area, Buxar, District- Buxar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Madhu Prasun, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr Amit Prakash, GA XIII ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) Date : 17-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2 This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to make immediate payment against supply of paddy by her to Respondent No 7.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5426 of 2022 dt.17-05-2022 2/2 3 We are completely at a loss to notice the nature of relief which the petitioner is seeking, based on the facts asserted in the writ petition. It is precisely the petitioner's case that on oral instruction of Respondent No 6, she supplied paddy to the miller to the tune of 57 quintals. It is the petitioner's own admission that no receipt was given to her in relation to the said supply, made by her. There are averments made in the writ petition regarding the informal practice prevalent in the area for procurement of paddy. 4 In our opinion, no case is made out for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the relief, which the petitioner has sought. This application, in our view, is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

5 This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.05.2022 Transmission Date NA