Dhirendra Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the Corporation.

The petitioner is the Proprietor of M/S Kumar Rice

Mill. There was an agreement between the petitioner and the

District Magistrate of Bihar State Food and Civil Supply

Corporation (hereinafter mentioned as "Corporation") for milling

of the paddy. At the same time, the petitioner was to deliver the

proportionate C.M.R. to the Corporation. The Corporation has

supplied 23946.70 quintal of paddy and the petitioner was to return

16,044.29 quintal of C.M.R. of Rs.3,47,44,872.65/- along with

gunny bags, total amount comes to Rs.3,48,44,72.65/-, but the

petitioner did not return the C.M.R. amount, which compelled the

Corporation to take action against the petitioner for realization of the

aforesaid dues amount as well as for his act of criminality an F.I.R.

has been lodged, making allegation that the petitioner has illegally

swallowed the huge amount of the Corporation. The District

Magistrate, Gaya, who is procurement head of the paddy, has taken

coercive action against the petitioner by sealing the mill premises and

has also requested the Bank to seize the operation of the account.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is

very unfortunate that not only the account of the petitioner has been

seized, but the District Magistrate has illegally also requested the

Bank to seize the account of his father, whereas the father of the

petitioner has nothing to do with the present petitioner and for the

act of the petitioner, his father should not suffer. It has further been

submitted that already there is a Bank Guarantee of

Rs.7,15,000,00/-, in such view of the matter, there is no justification

for the District Magistrate to take such an action of seizing the bank

account as well as sealing the premises of the mill.

Learned counsel for the Corporation has disputed the

statement of the petitioner with respect to the sealing of the

premises of the mill by placing reliance on the report of the S.D.O.,

but the report of the S.D.O. does not disclose that after verification

what he has done, the report only gives glimpse what he has found

during the inspection of the Godown of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed

reliance on the agreement, which reflects that the petitioner has

furnished the Bank Guarantee of Rs.7,15,000,00/-, on that basis he

is claiming that the action of the Corporation as well as the District

Magistrate is per se illegal and not suitable in law.

Learned counsel for the Corporation has fairly submits

that let the petitioner file a proper application / representation before

the Managing Director of the Corporation, who will look into the

grievance of the petitioner as the basic claim is with respect to the

reconciliation of the amount. If it is found that the petitioner in fact

has furnished the Bank Guarantee of the aforesaid amount, then

certainly after adjusting of Rs.3,48,44.872.65/- rest amount would

be returned to the petitioner.

In view of the fair stand of the Corporation, let the

petitioner file a proper application/representation before the

Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation,

Patna, giving details of the entire facts involved in the present case,

within a period of three weeks from today. If such an

application/representation is filed, and after due deliberation, if it is

found that the petitioner, in fact has furnished the Bank Guarantee

of the aforesaid amount, after necessary reconciliation of the

amount, the respondent authority would return the rest amount

without unnecessary delay.

In the meantime, the order of seizing the bank account

of the father of the petitioner is hereby quashed.

So far as the seizing of the Bank account of the

petitioner is concerned, he will be allowed to operate his bank

account on condition that he always keep the level of money in his

account as standing as on today.

It is clarified that if the petitioner would not file proper

application/representation before the Managing Director of the

Corporation within three weeks from today, the interim relief

granted to the petitioner by this order will be treated to have been

withdrawn. It is further clarified that if it is found vice versa the

petitioner is liable to pay the amount to the Corporation, then the

petitioner will be obliged to pay the same, in refusal to pay the

amount, the Corporation is at the liberty to take legal action against

the petitioner in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this

writ application is disposed of.