Hariharpur West Primary Agriculture v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7344 of 2015 =========================================================== Hariharpur West Primary Agriculture Credit Society Office at Village + P.O.- Kanour, P.S.-Kamataul, District- Darbhanga through its chairman Md. Furkan Akhtar, S/o- Late Haji Md. Muslim, R/o- Village+ P.O.- Kanour, P.S.-Kamataul, District- Darbhanga.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, State of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Co-operative, State of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Collector, District-Darbhanga

4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Civil Supplies Corporation, Patna

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District-Darbhanga

6. District Co-operative Officer, Darbhanga

7. The District Manager, Bihar State Civil Supplies Corporation, Darbhanga.

8. The Circle Officer, Block-Singhwara, District- Darbhanga.

9. The Branch Manager, Bihar State Cooperative Bank Limited, Darbhanga.

10. The Executive Assistant Paddy Purchase Counter Block. Singhwara, DistrictDarbhanga. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, AC to GP-23 Mr. Anil Kumar, GP-23 For SFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the State Food Corporation. 2.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent authorities to pay Rs.16,76,670.70/-

Patna High Court CWJC No.7344 of 2015 dt.20-11-2018 2/3 together with interest to the petitioner society as price of paddy, which is stated to have been supplied to the State Food Corporation (for short 'SFC').

3.

The claim of the petitioner is that though he has purchased 547 quintal of paddy from the farmers in the Kharif Season 2013-14 and supplied the same to the SFC, the price for the same has not been paid to him till date.

4.

The respondent State and the SFC have filed their respective counter-affidavits in which they have disputed the claim of the petitioner regarding supply of paddy to the SFC. 5.

Learned counsel for the SFC has contended that the petitioner has created forged documents in order to claim that the supplies were made to the SFC.

6.

The dispute raised by the respondent SFC and the State has been controverted by the petitioner.

7.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit wherein he has contended that the contentions made in the counteraffidavit are factually incorrect. 8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that false excuse is being made by the respondents to deny the payment for the price of the paddy supplied to the SFC. He submitted that the SFC had not only accepted the paddy from the petitioner rather it had also issued stock issue order in favour of different rice millers.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7344 of 2015 dt.20-11-2018 3/3 9.

Be that as it may, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is in the nature of money claim. Normally, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained to enforce a money claim arising out of breach of contract or money due to the claimant. Under such circumstances, aggrieved party is required to agitate the question in a civil suit.

10.

True it is that an order for payment of money may be made in a writ proceeding in enforcement of statutory functions of the State or its officers, but such power can be exercised sparingly depending on the facts and circumstances specially when the facts are not in dispute.

11.

In the instant case, the factum of supply of paddy by the petitioner to the SFC has been disputed by the SFC. Under such circumstances, in my considered opinion, the writ petition to enforce the money claim is not maintainable.

12.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek other remedies available in law. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date27.11.2018 Transmission Date NA