Naresh Kumra Thakur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8445 of 2016 =========================================================== Naresh Kumra Thakur, S/o Maheshwar Thakur, Vill- Belauna, P.S.- Basopatti, District- Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

5. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Madhubani

6. The District Co-operative Officer, Madhubani.

7. The District Chairman, Co-operative Bank, Madhubani.

8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhubani.

9. The Deputy Collector of Land Reformer, Sadar Madhubani.

10. The Circle Inspector Basopatti, Madhubani.

11. The Executive Assistant, State Food Corporation, Basopatti, Madhubani. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-BSFC : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-10-2018 The petitioner claims himself to be the Chairman of Virpur Primary Agricultural Credit Society. He has filed this writ petition in his individual capacity and not in the capacity of the Chairman.

2. His prayer in the present petition is to direct the respondent authorities to pay the cost of paddy of the farmers, who

Patna High Court CWJC No.8445 of 2016 dt.09-10-2018 2/2 had deposited the paddy before the purchase center.

3. By order dated 12.05.2016, this Court had directed him to file documents by way of supplementary affidavit reflecting the supply details. Till date, no such affidavit has been filed. Even the name of farmers who supplied the paddy has not been mentioned in the writ petition. The pleadings are too vague.

4. In absence of detail of supply of paddy before the purchase center of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation and in absence of any document in support thereof no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued against the respondents.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 12.10.2018 Transmission Date NA