← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/4420/2015disposed

Dhanchuha Primary Agriculture Credit Society v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-30Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4420 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Dhanchuha Primary Agriculture Credit Society (PACS) at Perhap, P.S.- Sahar, Distt. Bhojpur, through Chairman, Ram Binoy Rai, S/o Sri Aditya Rai, r/o vill- Dhanchuha, P.S.- Sahar, Distt.- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar at Patna,

2. Principal Secretary Food & Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar at Patna,

3. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar at Patna,

4. The Managing Director, the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Bihar at Patna,

5. The District Manager, the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Bhojpur at Arah,

6. The In Charge, Bihar State Food Corporation, Procurement Centre at Sahar, Bhojpur.

7. The Enforcement Officer, for Paddy cum Block Development Officer, Sahar, Block, Sahar, Bhojpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.N. Dubey- AAG12 For the S.F.C.I. : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 30-03-2016 Although the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondentCorporation to make payment of the balance paddy supplied but it is the own acceptance of the petitioner that for a higher supply made, the receipt issued was for a lesser quantity by the Corporation.

It is stated by Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Corporation that whatever was the supply, the payment has

Patna High Court CWJC No.4420 of 2015 (2) dt.30-03-2016 2/2 been made.

Considering that there is a dispute as to what has been the actual supply made by the petitioner and it is the own admission of the petitioner that the receipt was for a lesser quantity with no objection raised, I am not persuaded to enter into such disputed issues of facts for issuance of any direction. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U