In the State of Bihar vs. M/S Azad Agro Agency (2024), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varle refused to interfere with the judgment/order of the Patna High Court authored by Justice Partha Sarthy and dismissed the Special Leave Petition on January, 2, 2025. The case arose out of final judgment and order dated July 25, 2024 passed by the Patna High Court's bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy.
Justice Partha Sarthy found that "the appellants-State of Bihar has not made out a case either for condonation of delay of 296 days in filing of the instant appeal nor has been able to show any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the instant appeal." The Court dismissed the appeal of the State of Bihar.
The Justice Nilu Agrawal's Single Judge bench had directed for payment of the amount within a period of three months after noting that the District Agriculture Officer after verification of the supply of seeds, had recommended on October 14, 2014 for payment of Rs.51,75,440/ to the writ petitioner. On not having received the payment, the writ petitioner got a legal notice sent, in reply to which the District Agriculture Officer, Nalanda once again stated that payment will be made as soon as the funds are available.
Notably, the State had filed counter affidavit stating therein that the claim of the petitioner is of the year 2012-13 and petitioner has approached this Court after four years, hence, the writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. So far as the details of the payment to the petitioner is concerned, the matter was processed and it was found that the petitioner had purchased seeds for Rs. 10,6,792/- from outside the State as is evident by letter dated February 27, 2017 of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Biharsharif Circle. However, no reason has been assigned for keeping the claim pending or refusing to accept the claim of payment to the petitioner. The District Agriculture Officer on 14.10.20214 after proper verification of disbursement of the Dhaicha seeds to the farmers had recommended for payment of Rs. 51,75,440/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 11.11.2016 in reply to the legal notice the District Agriculture Officer, Nalanda has stated that as soon as funds are available, payment will be made. Respondents have now come up with a letter issued by the Commercial Taxes Department showing that seeds of only 10 lakhs and odd has been purchased from outside Bihar. Such pretext for refusing payment of admitted dues at the Commercial Taxes Department showing purchase of only 10 lakhs and odd is no basis for refusing payment. The Dhaicha seeds purchased by the petitioner and distributed to the farmers have been verified by the District Agriculture Officer, Nalanda in 2014 itself. In 2016, the District Agricultural Officer had only stated that because of non-allotment of fund payment could not be made. Justice Agrawal observed: "Now a new plea of the purchase by the petitioner from outside Bihar as written by the Commercial Taxes Department is taken that could be no ground for non-release of payment of admitted dues of the petitioner."
The High Court directed the respondents-State of Bihar, the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Patna, Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Patna, Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna, Director Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Patna, Joint Director (Agronomy) Inputs, Agriculture Department, Patna, District Agriculture Officer, Nalanda, Block Agriculture Officer, Giriyak, Nalanda, Block Agriculture Officer, Rajgeer, Nalanda, Block Agriculture Officer, Block, Hilsa, Nalanda, Block Agriculture Officer, Block, Islampur, Nalanda, Block Agriculture Officer, Katrisarai, Nalanda and Block Agriculture Officer, Tharthri, Nalanda, Block Agriculture Officer, Parbalpur, Nalanda and Block Agriculture Officer, Kariper Surai, Nalanda to make payment of admitted payments as verified by the District Agriculture Officer vide letter dated October 14, 2014 "expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The unreasonable approach of State government's Department off Agriculture has been disapproved by the High Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment