STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BHAGWAN DAS CHARAN PAHARHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the order of the Collector upholding the maintainability of Certificate Case No.08/supply/1965-66 is invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction and further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the State from taking steps for recovery of the amount through the certificate proceeding.

(2.) The plaintiff 's case, in short, is that the State appoint the plaintiff as stockist of food grains, wheat as well as rice from the year 1955. to 1960. Although there was a provision for entering into agreement, no agreement was entered into. During this period the plaintiff was carrying on his duties as stockist according to direction of State authorities but there arose some dispute when the State authorities refused to pay some rightful claim of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff filed Money Suit No.15 of 1962. The defendant-State denied the allegation on the ground that there is no agreement between the parties. However major part of the claim of the plaintiff was disallowed and thereafter the State authorities got the stock audited by auditor, who submitted report showing defalcation of Rs.27,038.68. On the basis of said report the Certificate Case No.08/supply/1965-66 was initiated. The further case of the plaintiff is that the report is bias report. Without considering the defence of the plaintiff and without considering the true facts and objection made by the plaintiff report was submitted and moreover the report is only a piece of evidence. In different headings different amounts were claimed to have been defalcated, which are wrong. In the plaint, details have been given explaining how the claims are incorrect. For example, the State claimed Rs.699.65 on account of price of 49 mounds, 39 seers of wheat as in the report it was pointed out that the wheat is found short. The plaintiff alleged that the weighing machine of the Railway was defective and prior to the report the plaintiff pointed out this defective weighing machine to the department. The defendant also claimed of Rs.420.00 for 30 mounds of wheat without considering the case of the plaintiff that in fact the plaintiff was not responsible for the same. The said wheat bags were lying in Gaya Railway Station for more than two months and delivery was given to the plaintiff in damaged condition in presence of the magistrate. 410 bags were given to the plaintiff and out of that because of damaged wheat 30 mounds of wheat dust were separated. In the report the magistrate mentioned this fact but it was not noticed even by the auditors. Likewise the plaintiff has pleaded in great details about claim of the State for different periods. In the judgment also the trial court has mentioned in detail.

(3.) The State authorities filed written statement. Their main defence is that the auditor 's report is correct and therefore certificate case was instituted.