Anil Kumar @APPELLANT@Hash State of Bihar

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 11.01.2018 contained in Memo No. 40 issued under the signature of

respondent District Magistrate, Arwal whereby he has tagged Belsar Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society (for short ‘PACCS’)

with Sakari Khurd for procuring surplus paddy for the financial year 2017-18.

The petitioner is the elected Chairman of Belsar PACCS. Other members of Beslar PACCS are also duly elected. Respondent no. 5 is the

nominated Executive Officer of the PACCS. During the financial year 2015-16, respondent District Co-operative Officer conducted an inquiry to the

Centers of the petitioner’s PACCS and found certain irregularities in purchase of paddy and for that an FIR was instituted in the police station

inter alia under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the purchase of paddy from the farmers within Belsar

PACCS was attached with Uttari Kaler PACCS vide Memo No. 93 dated 01.02.2016. Later on, Government of Bihar issued letter no. 5763 dated

14.11.2017 with regard to implementation of the scheme relating to purchase/collection of the paddy directly from the farmers for the financial year

2017-18. The District Magistrate, Arwal vide impugned letter dated 11.01.2018, as contained in Memo No. 40 attached Belsar PACCS with Sakari

Khurd for procuring the surplus paddy for the financial year 2017-18.

Being aggrieved by the aforestated letter dated 11.01.2018, the present writ petition has been filed.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Arwal

is in complete departure to the mandate of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. The respondent no. 3 is not competent to pass an order

attaching one PACS with another. In absence of any express or implied power vested in the District Magistrate under the Bihar Co-operative

Societies Act, 1935, no such order of attachment of the petitoner’s PACCS with another PACCS could have been passed.

On the other hand, Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Government of Bihar has issued letter no. 5763 dated

14.11.2017 with regard to implementation of the scheme relating to purchase/collection of the paddy directly from the farmers for the financial year

2017-18 whereby for the purpose of purchase from the genuine and registered farmers, the District Magistrate has been conferred with jurisdiction to

have overall supervision and control and in exercise of that power he has passed the order, as the petitioner’s PACCS was found indulged in

committing several irregularities in the matter of procurement of paddy from farmers.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

To ensure minimum support price to the farmers for different varieties of paddy and to ensure timely milling of procured paddy with effective and

efficient use of available rice mill capacity through custom milling and levy routes and timely delivery of rice by the millers to the Food Corporation of

India depots as also to ensure timely availability of rice for public distribution systems across the State, the Government procures paddy for different

kharif marketing seasons under the food and procurement policy. Under the scheme farmers are able to sell their paddy as close as possible by

locating paddy purchase centre in close proximity. The payment of paddy purchased from the farmers of the State agencies or from authorized

societies or miller agents is made through account payee cheque or through direct transfer to the bank accounts of the farmers of every

PACCS/society.

The role of District Administration is to ensure that the estimated procurement target of PACCS is taken care of.

It is true that the District Magistrate has the power of monitoring and supervision in respect of procurement of paddy, delivery of paddy to custom

millers and custom milled rice received from the custom millers. However, no such power is vested in the District Magistrate through which he may

tag one PACCS with another for procuring surplus paddy directly from the farmers. The District Magistrate having power of monitoring and

supervision to implement the scheme does not automatically inherit the power to tag one PACCS with another.

In absence of such power, the impugned letter dated 11.01.2018, as contained in Memo No. 40 issued under the signature of respondent District

Magistrate, Arwal cannot be sustained. It is set aside, accordingly. The writ petition stands allowed.