A penalty for late delivery of food grains due to unavoidable circumstances was held unreasonable, leading to the order being set aside.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

13 04-12-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application being aggrieved by the order, dated 27.11.2023, passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (in short “BSFC”) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was selected as transporter and food grains delivery agent (DSD Agent) by the District Transport Committee for delivery of food grains to the PDS dealers.

3. The petitioner was directed to deliver the foodgrains on 09.05.2019 vide SIO No. 15021908899 by his vehicle, bearing Registration No. BR11-GB-4360, from TPDS godown to Azamnagar to Kelabari PACS Panchayat. The petitioner delivered the good/foodgrains on 10.05.2019 at 06:00 AM in the morning. The time and date of delivery of foodgrains are not disputed.

4. On 11.05.2019, the respondent no. 4-DGM (Modernization), BSFC, Patna, served a show-cause notice vide letter no. 5022 alleging diversion of route in transportation of foodgrains by vehicle, bearing Registration No. BR11-GB-4360, on 09.05.2019. On 14.05.2019, the petitioner submitted his reply, stating therein, that the truck/vehicle was financed by Cholamandalam Finance Company and due to non-payment of some outstanding amount towards loan, the company obstructed the movement of the petitioner’s vehicle, as such, the petitioner took different route through Katihar. However, the foodgrains were unloaded on 10.05.2019 at 06:00 AM. On 11.06.2019, vide letter no. 6082, the respondent no. 4 ordered recovery of 100%

price of food grains as penalty from the petitioner.

5. The petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 13850 of 2021 challenging the penalty imposed for transportation of food grains by different route and this Court vide its order, dated 28.08.2023, directed the petitioner to file an appeal/representation before the Managing Director, BSFC, Patna. The petitioner submitted his representation taking all the relevant points, but the Managing Director, BSFC, Patna, passed the impugned order, dated 27.11.2023/30.11.2023, by which the representation/appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and vide letter no. 10393, dated 12.10.2019, the respondent no. 5-DGM (Distribution, BSFC, Patna, while releasing the fund to the petitioner made deduction of Rs. 2,81,098/- from the bills of the petitioner alleging that there was diversion of route.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as distributor-cum-handling agent (Door Step Delivery Agent). Three trucks were loaded for distribution of food grains out of which two trucks, after changing the route due to flood in the area, delivered the food grains. The respondent-authorities, taking note of the fact that the area being flooded, did not impose any penalty upon two trucks/vehicles. However, penalty was imposed on the third vehicle, bearing Registration No. BR11-GB-4360, which diverted its route due to obstruction created by the finance company and delivered the food grains within reasonable time i.e. the very next day at

06:00 AM in the morning of 10.05.2019.

7. He further submits that the concerned authority i.e. the Managing Director, BSFCC, Patna, failed to appreciate the situation in correct legal perspective and has arbitrarily imposed penalty which is in violation of agreement itself.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplied Corporation Limited argued that the order of the Managing Director, BSFCC, Patna, has been passed in terms of Clause 4(d) of the agreement. Since, the petitioner failed to deliver the food grains within reasonable time, the presumption was there regarding intention of the petitioner of black-marketing of the food grains by illegal means. He further s