Renu Kumari @ Saro Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10620 of 2014 ====================================================== Renu Kumari @ Saro Devi W/o Sri Sidheshwar Prasad Resident of Village Aungari, P.S. Ekangarsarai, District Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Patna.

3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture (Extention), Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Agriculture Officer cum Project Director, ATMA Nalanda, Biharsharif.

5. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

6. The Block Development Officer, Ekangarsarai, Nalanda.

7. The Block Agriculture Officer, Ekangarsarai, Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.Kumar, SC11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 28-10-2016 Both sides present.

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent(s). There is no rejoinder.

In 2007, the petitioner received a communication that she has been selected for conferring 'Kisan Sree' Award for which a function was to be held on 31.10.2007. As she was not conferred with the said award, she filed the writ petition before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 6924 of 2008. The same was considered and disposed of on 27.09.2012 by the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner, as usual, is very fair in his submission that he has nothing more to say beyond what has been stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit, especially in para-10.

As and when a final picture emerges on

Patna High Court CWJC No.10620 of 2014 (2) dt.28-10-2016 2/2 the issue the claim of the petitioner shall be considered accordingly.

Writ application is disposed of with above observation."

The contempt application filed by the petitioner vide MJC No. 2571 of 2013 was dismissed on 19.02.2014. The respondents in the light of the order passed on the said writ petition, is stated to have made a detailed inquiry in which the petitioner was also noticed and heard. In the light of the materials revealed in course of inquiry and considering the conditions of the said yojna under which such claim was raised, the Director, Accounts Administration and Self-Employment, District Rural Development Authority submitted a report to the District Magistrate available at Annexure-G series, whereafter the District Magistrate passed the order dated 24.07.2013 (part of annexure-G series) wherefrom it appears that the petitioner does not qualify for conferment of the recognition/award. Upon hearing both sides, in my view, in the light of the stand taken by the respondents which has not been controverted by the counsel for the petitioner, the present application deserves to be dismissed. I order accordingly.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) rohit/- U