Nagendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18836 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Nagendra Singh Son Of Late Suraj Singh Resident Of Village And Post Office - Inerwa Phulwar Police Station - Ghorasahan At Present Lakhaura, District - East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Commissioner-Cum-Director, Bihar State Co-Operative Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna - 1

3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran

4. The Sub Divisional Officer , Sikrahna (Dhaka), East Champaran

5. The Block Development Officer, Block - Bankatwa, District - East Champaran

6. The Block Agriculture Officer, Block- Bankatwa, East Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Prakash Arya For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prahlad Kr. Bhagat Gp13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 06-01-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner during the relevant time was the Chairman of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS), Inerwa Phulwar, within Bankatwa Block in the District of East Champaran.

The writ application asserts that the Block Agricultural Officer has not passed some of the vouchers presented by the petitioner.

In the counter affidavit, it has been asserted that after purchasing paddy from the farmers the petitioner supplied only

Patna High Court CWJC No.18836 of 2012 (4) dt.06-01-2016 2/2 2458.80 quintals of paddy to the procurement centre for which payment was made after verification. The claim of the petitioner of having supplied 3524 quintals of paddy is false. The Block Agriculture Officer, on enquiry, found the claim of the petitioner baseless.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter may be disposed of permitting the petitioner to raise the grievance as raised through this application before the respondent -District Magistrate for consideration of his claim. Counsel for the State, having appreciated the said stand of the petitioner, has not objected to the said submission. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of permitting the petitioner to raise the grievance before the respondent -District Magistrate within four weeks from today. If any such claim/application is filed the respondent District Magistrate shall examine/consider the same as quickly as possible in accordance with law.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U