RAJ KUMAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by a notice issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai vide memo no. 452 dated 30.3.2009 in which it has been stated that the rice received under the order 1 and 2 in the year 2007-08 should be sold at the Above Poverty Line (APL) rate and the money so received should be deposited with the D.D.C.

(2.) The background of this case is that the Central Government had introduced a scheme known as EKIKRIT SAMPURNA GRAMIN ROJGAR YOJANA for the financial year 2002-03 to 2007-08. In the year 2007-08, the petitioner who is a Public Distribution System Dealer was directed to lift rice (ARWA) from the State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Begusarai so that the same can be distributed by the State Officials in lieu of work performed under the aforesaid scheme on the basis of payment, half through grains and half by cash. For one reason or the other, the schemes could not be executed and as such, the food grains remained in the shops of the Public Distribution System Dealers including this petitioner. In the year 2009-10, an audit was performed and it was discovered that there was no account of utilization of large stock of rice which was lying in the godowns of various Public Distribution System Dealers for distribution.

(3.) Considering this aspect of the matter, it appears to this Court that in order to save their skins, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai or the other authorities of the State Government, Incharge of the said schemes have directed the Public Distribution System Dealers to sell the stock. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that any food grain kept in the godown for more than a year or so without proper facilities must be found in a very bad condition, if not completely destroyed. It is a shame that the State Authorities allowed this to happen. Now, by the impugned Annexure-1, they have issued a letter that this stale bad stock of rice should be sold and the money so received should be deposited with the D.D.C. This Court does not find that it is a very fair stand on behalf of the State Authorities concerned.