Chandrama Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13203 of 2014 ====================================================== Chandrama Sharma, son of late Shri Kaushal Singh, resident of VillageShekhpura, P.O.- Khajuri, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Patna.

2. The Bihar State Food Corporation, West Boring Canal Road, Patna.

3. The District Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation, West Boring Canal Road, Patna.

4. The Purchase Incharge, State Food Corporation, Naubatpur.

5. The Circle Officer, Naubatpur Block.

6. The Manager, Patliputra Central Co-operative Bank, Naubatpur.

7. Bhart Bhushan Sharma, retired Purchaser Incharge, S.F.C., West Boring Canal Road, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Advocate.

Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Lala Prasad, AC to GP-6 For the Corporation :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Rsp. No. 8 :

Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 15-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. When this case has been taken up today, Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 8, has submitted that the payment of Rs. 5,17,296/- has already been made to the petitioner in compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 04.02.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that though it is true that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs. 5,17,296/- but he ought to have been paid some Rs. 18,000/- more.

3. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel

Patna High Court CWJC No.13203 of 2014 (10) dt.15-04-2015 2/2 appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), immediately comes to explain that the amount given by the respondent no. 8 to the petitioner is in accordance with the price and bonus fixed by the Central Government and admissible as per the norms of the Corporation.

4. This Court therefore will now not go into the accounting side of the amount inasmuch as it would find that the respondent no. 8 has made payment of the amount by way of price and bonus to the petitioner. Having regard to this subsequent development, this writ application is disposed of as having become infructuous.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U