Baliram Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13635 of 2011 =========================================================== Baliram Prasad S/O Sri Mundrika Sao, R/O Village-Katari, P.O. + P.S. Chandauti, Distt.-Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

4. The Deputy Development Cmmissioner, Gaya.

5. The Director, District Rural Development Agency, Gaya.

6. The Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya.

7. The Block Development Officer (Town) Gaya.

8. The Block Supply Officer (Town Block) Gaya. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Prahlad Kr. Bhagat, GP-13 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs - "(i) For issuance of an appropriate order/writ/direction for quashing order dated 12.07.2011 contained in Memo no. 1096 whereby and whereunder the petitioner, being PDS shop owner, has been directed to deposit Rs. 4110 and Rs. 2,61,670/-

respectively @ 1370 per Quintal for 3 quintal and 191 quintals grains lifted by him under SGRY and NFFWP Scheme on or before 21.07.2011.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents to not harass the petitioner and take any coercive action against him and recover the abovenoted amount.

(iii) To pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Enquiry Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Udai Sinha (Retired) has now submitted its report and any further action in relation to recovery of the value of undistributed rice under the SGRY Scheme would abide by the decision of the State Government to be taken on the basis of such report.

4. In the above view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to approach this Court afresh as and when the occasion arises in future.

5. Having regard to the stand of the petitioner, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

6. Let the authorities refrain from taking coercive measures against the petitioner until decision is taken by the State

Government, as aforesaid.

(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 08.10.2018 Transmission Date N.A.