Mritunjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13384 of 2016 ====================================================== Mritunjay Kumar son of late Ram Sagar Singh resident of Village - Khhatauna, P.S.-Navkothi, District- Begusarai, Proprietor of M/s Bhardwaj Industries, Begusarai .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The state of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food & Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation, Limited, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

4. The District Magistrate, Bihar State Food Corporation, Muzaffarpur

5. The District Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation, Begusarai

6. The District Magistrate, Bihar State Food Corporation, Khagaria

7. The Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-District Certificate officer, East Muzaffarpur

8. In-charge of Purchase Centre, FCI/BSW, Barauni .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh-SC-4 For the BSFC : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate For the FCI : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, Advocate Mr. Shashidhar Jha. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and for the respondent-Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.4.2016/21.6.2016 passed by the District Certificate Officer, East Muzaffarpur in Certificate Case No. 838/2014-15 by which distress warrant has been issued against the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13384 of 2016 (2) dt.27-09-2016 2/2 The simple point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed an objection before the Certificate Officer but without deciding the same distress warrant has been issued which is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner has not disputed the amounts under the certificate and thus the distress warrant need not be interfered with.

It is not to be considered whether the amounts under certificate are in dispute or not. Admittedly, an objection was filed before the Certificate Officer which he has not decided and without doing so proceeded to issue distress warrant. Such a course of action is not permissible.

In the above circumstances, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.4.2016/21.6.2016 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Certificate Officer to first decide the objection filed by the petitioner before proceeding further in the certificate case.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) S.Pandey/- U