Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 1298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S.P. Singh, J.
Awadh Prasad Singh (in 711)
Suresh Prasad @ Raj Kumar (in 757) - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
CWJC No. 711 and 757 of 2011
Decided On : 6.7.2011
The court emphasized the importance of providing adequate opportunity to the petitioners to respond to the demand for refund and directed the authorities to consider the submissions and pass a final order within three months.
Headnote:
Refund of undistributed rice - SGRY Scheme - 50% & 30% of Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana - [Annexure-1, 1984 Unification Order, NREGA] - The court considered the demand for refund of undistributed rice under the SGRY Scheme at APL rate of Rs. 13.10 per Kgs and treated it as a show cause notice, directing the petitioners to file a reply and the authorities to consider the submissions and pass a final order within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders directing refund of undistributed rice under the SGRY Scheme at APL rate of Rs. 13.10 per Kgs. They argued that they had no control over the distribution of rice and that a large quantity of rice remained in their godown due to non-issuance of adequate permits.
Finding of the Court:
The court treated the demand for refund as a show cause notice and directed the petitioners to file a reply, with the authorities to consider the submissions and pass a final order within three months. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioners in the meanwhile.
Issues: The main issue was the demand for refund of undistributed rice under the SGRY Scheme at a higher rate than the rate at the time of allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to treat the demand for refund as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioners to file a reply and directing the authorities to consider the submissions and pass a final order within three months.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ applications with the above directions and observations.
The two writ applications are taken up together as the facts and issue are common.
2. The petitioners of both the writ applications pray for quashing the orders issued by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, contained in Annexure-1, directing refund of value of undistributed rice under 50% & 30% of Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SGRY Scheme”) in between the year 2002 to 2006 at APL rate of Rs. 13.10 per Kgs.
3. A scheme namely SGRY Scheme was started by the Central Government and was made over to the District Rural Development Authorities of the State for its implementation. The scheme was fully sponsored by the Central Government under which employment was provided to the rural unemployed and the wages were to be paid partly in kind (rice) for the implementation of the scheme. It is the case of the State that the licensee under the Public Distribution System was entrusted with the work of carrying, storage and distribution of rice to the labourers on the permits which was issued by the implementing agency namely Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samitee and Zila Parishad. The scheme lasted for four years from the years 2002 to 2006.
4. The petitioner Awadh Prasad Singh of C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 is a P.D.S. dealer under Nawada Block in the district of Nawada having licence no.17/85(old) under 1984 Unification Order which was renumbered as 158/07.
5. The petitioner Suresh Prasad of C.W.J.C. No. 757 of 2011 is also a PDS dealer having licence no.1/93 under Unification Order 1984 which was renumbered as 327 of 2007 under Akbarpur Block in the district of Nawada.
6. The petitioner Awadh Prasad Singh states that he was allotted rice under 50% & 30% of SGRY Scheme for the year 2002-2006 for being distributed against permits to be issued by the respondents. In other words, they were prohibited from distributing any quantity of rice without issuance of permits. On the other hand, the petitioner Suresh Prasad states that the State of Bihar had entrusted Rural Development Authorities for implementing the SGRY Scheme. Under the scheme the Rural Development Authorities distributed rice through Panchayat Samitee and Panchayat to the labourer for the work taken from them. The Rural Development Authority made it obligatory upon the petitioner and other PDS dealers to store such quantity of rice as would be allotted to them for distribution under 50% and 30% of SGRY Scheme against issuance of permits. The petitioner submits that they had no control over the distribution of rice which was to be distributed only against permits to be issued by the authorities of the District Board, Panchayat Samitee or the Panchayat.
7. It is common case of both the petitioners that SGRY Scheme came to an end in the year 2006 and still quite a large quantity of rice remained in their godown on account of non-issuance of adequate permits for its distribution. The common case of the petitioners is that they had small godown and they did not have adequate infrastructure to protect the same from the vagries of nature. The rice is a perishable item and quite sufficient quantity of rice had rusted as the authorities did not take them back.
8. The grievance of the petitioners is that after 4 1/2 years of closure of the Scheme, the authorities are demanding to refund the value of undistributed rice at APL rate of Rs.13.10 per Kgs. The case of the petitioners is that the rate of rice at the time of allotment to them was low and the authorities should not insist for refund the same at a higher rate.
9. A counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been stated that in February, 2006 the S.G.R.Y. Scheme was closed and the balance of S.G.R.Y. rice was to be diverted from S.G.R.Y. to NREGA and due to certain misadjustment unspent rice remained balance with the writ petitioners. It has further been stated that earlier efforts taken to recover the rice at lower level were not successful. The o
