Madan Mohan Prasad Verma @ Madan Mohan Verma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2200 of 2018 ====================================================== Madan Mohan Prasad Verma @ Madan Mohan Verma S/o Sri Krishna Kishore Verma, Resident of Mohalla- Ramdhanpur Nai Godown, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Khadya Bhawan, Near R. Block 3.

The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Yadavpur Road, Gopalganj.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Advocate For the BSFC :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Vishawambhar Prasad -AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 18-09-2023 Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and the State.

2. Prayer is for issuance of of writ of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the letter no. 548 dated 1.6.2017 and letter no. 1295 dated 3.11.2017 (Annexure-16) issued by the District Manager/Controlling Officer, State Food Corporation, Gopalganj by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 1,07,03233.00/- (one crore seven lacs three thousand two hundred and thirty three rupees) in the form of Demand Draft fixing the responsibility for deterioration of grains in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.2200 of 2018(3) dt.18-09-2023 2/3 Mirganj godown of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Gopalganj and for issuance of other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions order/orders in the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. The petitioner has made representation before the District Manager, BSFCS, Gopalganj (respondent no.3).

4. In this case, on 9.3.2018, direction was given to the respondents to file counter affidavit.

5. Five and half years later, no reply is on record which is deprecable.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that instead of District Manager, it would be appropriate that the petitioner approach the respondent, Managing Director who will look into the grievance and pass necessary order.

7. In view of the fact that no counter affidavit has come for the last five and half years, it would be appropriate that the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 2, the Managing Director for the redressal of his grievance.

8. If the same is preferred along with supporting document within eight weeks from today, the respondent no.2 shall take up the matter and if required, will give a hearing to

Patna High Court CWJC No.2200 of 2018(3) dt.18-09-2023 3/3 the petitioner and pass necessary order preferably within a period of six months.

9. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U