Puja Kumari Jaiswal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10021 of 2016 ====================================================== Puja Kumari Jaiswal, wife of Sri Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Birauli Bazar, P.O.- Ajakopa, P.S.- Rupauli, District- Purnea, Proprietor of M/s Maa Rice Mill, Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

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

4.

The Deputy Chief (Claim), Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Patna.

5.

The District Magistrate, Purnea.

6.

The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Purnea.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar For the Respondent-State : Smt.Nivedita Nirvikar, GA-10 For the Respondent-BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 28-06-2016 Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and its authorities.

The petitioner is a Miller and raises a grievance against the action of the respondent-Corporation in not making payment of the dues towards the milling, handling and transportation of custom milled rice (hereinafter referred to as the 'CMR') and paddy amounting to Rs.36,73,262.58; price for supply of 580.91 quintals of 'CMR' against which proportionate paddy was not supplied by 'the Corporation' and Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner as Bank security.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10021 of 2016 (2) dt.28-06-2016 Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reference to Annexure-7 which is a letter of recommendation of the District Manager submits that there is no dispute as to the supply of 'CMR' yet steps are not being taken by 'the Corporation' for payment of the price although representations have been filed by the petitioner before the Managing Director of 'the Corporation' copy of which is present at Annexure-8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the limited grievance raised in the writ petition I deem it fit and proper to direct the Managing Director of 'the Corporation' to either consider the grievance of the petitioner by himself or appropriately direct any other officer empowered for the purpose to consider the claim of the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Needless to add that the admissible claim of the petitioner be paid to her within the period stipulated above and any claim not found to be admissible be disposed of by a speaking order to be passed after hearing the petitioner but within the period stipulated above.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U