RAJ TRADERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Namrata Mishra, learned counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. as well as the counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioner had initially filed the writ application for quashing of the notice to show cause vide letter No. 14948 dtd. 27/12/2016 (Annexure-7) issued under the instructions of the Managing Director of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) requiring the petitioner to reply against the contemplated action why the agreement be not cancelled, bank guarantee forfeited and the petitioner firm be blacklisted for a period of five years as well as recovery of price of 3017.50 quintals of rice confiscated and why fifteen trucks of the petitioner be not prohibited from transporting the goods of the Corporation on the ground of institution of First Information Report being Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016 lodged on 2/2/2016. Petitioner immediately rushed to this Court against the said show cause notice. Subsequently, the impugned order was passed on 30/1/2017, Annexure-12 which the petitioner challenged by filing I.A. No. 773 of 2017 whereby the agreement was rescinded, security deposit and bank guarantee forfeited, the petitioner was restrained and blacklisted for a period of five years and the price of 3017.50 quintals of rice was sought to be recovered/ deducted from the transportation bills of the petitioner and as per the District Magistrate's order dtd. 30/8/2016 out of the confiscated rice i.e. 471.80 quintals was to be sold and proceeds deposited in the treasury, which has also been challenged by the petitioner. Since I.A. No. 773 of 2017 is challenging the subsequent order of blacklisting, the same is allowed.

(3.) The facts of the case is that petitioner was appointed as a transporter and handling agent for the district of Bhojpur by the respondent-Corporation by way of an agreement dtd. 18/2/2013. The controversy arose in the month of January, 2016 when some of the trucks, which were used by the petitioner for transportation of food grains of the Corporation were found parked in the vicinity of one M/s Singh Rice Mill, Ara. Raising suspicion that the petitioner was transporting food grains of the Corporation to the mills and thus indulging in black-marketing, the matter was enquired and subsequently led to lodging of a First Information Report being Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016 dtd. 2/2/2016 for the offence under Ss. 411, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 7 of the E.C. Act. Simultaneously, vide Letter No. 1568 dtd. 4/2/2016, the petitioner was asked to show cause for violation of the terms of the agreement and why the agreement be not cancelled and securities be forfeited. The said show cause dtd. 4/2/2016 being contrary to the express terms of the agreement was challenged by the petitioner in earlier writ being C.W.J.C. No. 3191 of 2016 (Annexure-6 to the writ application). During pendency of the earlier writ application, the petitioner was served with second show cause notice vide Letter No. 1976 dtd. 11/2/2016 placing reliance on a report of the District Magistrate in Letter No. 348 dtd. 5/2/2016, which was an ex parte report of the District Magistrate. The petitioner had challenged the first show cause notice dtd. 4/2/2016, the report of the District Magistrate dtd. 5/2/2016 before this Court in the earlier writ application.