Chinta Mani Pandey @ Balister Pandey And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7011 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Chinta Mani Pandey @ Balister Pandey

2. Ajay Kumar Pandey

3. Shailesh Kumar Pandey All sons of Sri Bishwanath Pandey, Resident of VillageChanayan Bandth, P.S.- Majhaulia, District- West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna

4. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Bettiah, West Champaran

5. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran

6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar, Bettiah, District- West Champaran

7. The District Supply Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran

8. The Enforcement Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Majhaulia Block, District- West Champaran

9. The Block Agriculture Officer, Majhaulia Block, Majhaulia, District- West Champaran

10. The Incharge, Paddy Purchase Centre, Majhaulia Block, District- West Champaran

11. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Govt. of India, New Delhi

12. The Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Govt. of India, New Delhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the BSFC Mr. Amrendra Nr. Rai For the State Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad- SC-9 Mr. S.Krishna A.C. to SC-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 27-07-2015 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar in support of the writ petition and Mr. A.N. Rai for the respondent-Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). The three petitioners herein are the framers who claim to have grown paddy. They have sought a direction upon the respondents to extend the date for purchase of paddy directly from the agriculturists like the petitioners. Other relief(s) have

Patna High Court CWJC No.7011 of 2015 (3) dt.27-07-2015 2/2 also been prayed. The writ petition, however, does not set out any pleading supported by document(s) obligating the Corporation to directly purchase the paddy from the farmers. In the counter affidavit of the respondent- Corporation it has been categorically stated that paddy is not purchased directly from the agriculturist. In exceptional cases, the same are purchased after obtaining permission of the concerned authority. Normally, farmers are required to sell paddy through the PACS under the procurement scheme. Time of procurement of paddy has lapsed/crossed. Now it is paddy growing season. The petitioner has not shown anything in support of their claim at this belated stage.

In view of pleading(s) in the writ petition which lacks in particulars, the statements made in the counter affidavit and the facts noticed hereinabove, in my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The application is dismissed. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U