Bihra Primary Agriculture Credit And Cooperative Society v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22901 of 2019 ====================================================== Bihra Primary Agriculture Credit and Cooperative Society through its Chairman Sri Uday Pratap Singh, S/o Late Kuwar Singh resident of Village Bihra ward No. 4, P.S. Bihra District Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of CoOperative Bihar Patna. 2.

District Magistrate Saharsa.

3.

Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd through its Managing Director Bihar Patna office at Sone Bhawan 5th Floor Vir Chand Patel Path Patna.

4.

District Co-Operative Officer Saharsa.

5.

District Manager Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd Saharsa.

6.

Krishna Rice Mill Through its Proprietor Sri Lalan Kumar Yadav aged about 44 years son of not Known office at Village Dibari Asthan PS and District Saharsa.

7.

Ma Tara Rice Mill Sundarban Mahishi through its Proprietor Sri Dilip Kumar Jha aged about 43 years son of not Known office at Sundarban Mahishi PS and District Saharsa.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the BSFC :

Mr. Agreya Pratap, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation').

2. After hearing the parties yesterday, the Court had adjourned the matter to enable learned counsel for the Corporation

Patna High Court CWJC No.22901 of 2019 dt.13-12-2019 2/2 to produce copy of the agreement between the parties to substantiate the statement made in paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit filed by him.

3. Today, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the copy of the agreement has been brought on record in the writ petition itself. However, when he assisted the Court on the basis of such annexure, it transpires that the document brought on record is different to the document which has been annexued with the copy given to learned counsel for the Corporation and further the pleadings relating to Annexure-5 at paragraph no. 9 also disclose that the document annexed is not the correct document.

4. In view thereof, the application stands dismissed.

5. The petitioner, if so advised, may file a fresh and proper application.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T