Dilip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19327 of 2011 =========================================================== Dilip Kumar Son Of Rang Lal Paswan Resident of Village-Dharampur Tola, P.S.- Koilwar, District-Bhojpur (Ara).

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar.

2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, District Bhojpur (Ara).

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub-Division-Bhojpur (Ara), District-Bhojpur (Ara).

4. The Block Development Officer Block-Koilwar, District-Bhojpur (Ara).

5. The Panchayat Secretary, Dharampur Tola, P.S.-Koilwar, District-Bhojpur (Ara).

6. The Mukhiya, Koilwar, P.S.-Koilwar, District Bhojpur (Ara). .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Sundram, AC to GP24 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-11-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs - "(i) for the issuance of a rule in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21-07-11 passed by respondent no. 5, The Block development Officer Block Koilwar, District Bhojpur (Ara), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit price of the balance rice weighing 1482.39 quintals valuing Rs. 20,30,874/- within 7 days of the receiving of the aforesaid order which was allotted to the petitioner under S.G.R.Y. - I and II (hereinafter referred to as the Schemes ) failing which appropriate action would be taken against him. (ii) for the issuance of a rule in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to

Patna High Court CWJC No.19327 of 2011 dt.20-11-2018 2/2 follow the conditions incorporated in the allotment orders and not to realize price of the balance rice from the petitioner in as much as neither in the aforesaid scheme nor in the allotment orders there was a condition that for the remaining rice, any penalty or price would be charged from the dealers."

2. As none appeared on behalf of the petitioner the matter was passed over for a few cases. However, on repeat call the petitioner was again not represented.

3. Learned counsel for the State states that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Enquiry Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Udai Sinha (Retired) has now submitted its report and any further action in relation to recovery of the value of undistributed rice under the SGRY Scheme would abide by the decision of the State Government to be taken on the basis of such report.

4. Having regard to the stand of the State, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 22.11.2018 Transmission Date N.A.