Patna High Court
Manjaura Primary Agriculture Credit Society,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed; the single judge’s order dismissing the writ petition stands.
Summary
Manjaura Primary Agriculture Credit Society (PACS) appealed a single judge’s order dismissing its writ petition seeking mandamus to compel the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation (BSFSC) to enter into a milling agreement, lift stored custom milled rice (CMR), and pay damages. The petition alleged that the corporation’s negligence caused the CMR to deteriorate and that the society was not a defaulter. The respondents argued that the matter had already been decided in earlier proceedings (LPA No.1141/2018 and CWJC No.14890 of 2018), invoking res judicata, and that the petition raised disputed factual issues unsuitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The single judge dismissed the petition on grounds of laches and the existence of alternative civil remedies. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed the dismissal, holding that the single judge’s findings of fact were not perverse and that the writ court could not adjudicate the disputed facts, directing the appellant to approach a civil suit for any claim. The Letters Patent Appeal was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the existence of an alternative civil remedy and the doctrine of res judicata.
- Whether the High Court can entertain disputed questions of fact in a writ petition under Article 226.
- Whether the Letters Patent Appeal can set aside the single judge’s order dismissing the writ petition.
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- res judicata
- letters patent appeal
- disputed facts
- civil suit
- custom milled rice
- defaulter PACS
- laches
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.549 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.696 of 2023
======================================================
Manjaura Primary Agriculture Credit Society, Udakishunganj, District-
Madhepura through it is Chairman Abda Tabassum, Female aged 33 Years
Wife of Arsad Ansari, Resident of Manjaura P.S.-Bihariganj, District-
Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
5. The Cooperative Extension Officer cum Enforcement Officer, Madhepura.
6. The Block Development Officer, Udakishunganj Block, Madhubani.
7. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation,
Patna.
8. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation,
Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4
For the B.S.F.C. : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 28-01-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellant Manjaura Primary Agriculture Credit Society
challenging the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.696 of 2023, wherein the learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
2/14
Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
The writ petition was filed with the following prayer:-
“(i) For issuance of writ of mandamus
commanding upon the respondents to enter
into the agreement with the petitioner for
the milling of the paddy & other works for
the current & onwards Kharif Session as
they are entering into the agreement with
the other PACS they are not taking work
from this petitioner (PACS) on the issue on
which this Hon'ble Court has decided that
for the fault of the respondents Bihar State
Food & Civil Corporation the food grains
were not lifted from the godown of the
petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of writ of mandamus
commanding upon the respondents to lift
the balance quantity of CMR which has
been alleged not been supplied to the
corporation (in whatever condition it is) as
the District Magistrate after enquiry has
found the same CMR in the godown of the
petitioner at the relevant point of time.
(ⅲ) For the declaration that petitioner is not a
defaulter as due to latches of the BSFC the
remaining quantity of the CMR was not
lifted from the godown of the petitioner.
(iv) For direction upon the respondents to pay
milling & transportation charge of the
paddy and also the rent of the godown
against which due to latches of the BSFC
the proportionate quantity of the CMR was
not lifted from the godown of the petitioner
and District Magistrate after enquiry found
same CMR was present in the godown of
the petitioner at the relevant point of time.
(v) For the direction to the BSFC to pay heavy
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
3/14
cost (compensation) to the petitioner as
due to non action of the respondent
corporation, the petitioner is being
harassed for the default of the respondent
corporation itself.
(vi) For the direction to the Government to take
appropriate action including Department
proceeding against the erring authority
who had not lifted the CMR for Kharif
session 2017-18 from the mill/godown of
petitioner only due to non fulfilling of the
illegal demand by the petitioner.
(vi) For the other reliefs in the facts &
circumstances of the case.
i. For issuance of the writ of mandamus
commanding the respondent to enter into
the agreement with the petitioner PACS of
the KMS 2024-25 and onwards for the
procurement of paddy and milling work.
ii. For issuance of writ of certiorari for
quashing of the part of the order dated
20.3.2020 (Annexure-16 to W.P) passed by
Secretary, food and consumer protection
department by which Secretary has
constituted a enquiry committee to enquire
about to Fair Average Quality (FAQ) of the
Custom Milled Rice (CMR) remaining
unlifted in the mill /down of the petitioner
PACS and if the CMR is found in good
quality then only the CMR is lifted.
iii. For issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash
the inquiry report dated 21.05.2020
(Annexure-17), in which the committee
formed by the Secretary conducted an
assessment, after a two-year delay, and
found that the CMR did not meet the FAQ
standard.
iv. Other reliefs in the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
4/14
2. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.7 and 8
filed the counter affidavit wherein the following stand has been
taken:-
“4. That the present writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner for directed to respondent
to entire into the agreement with the
petitioner for the milling of the paddy and
other work for the current and on words
Khariff Sessions as they are entry into the
agreement with the other PACS. They are
not taking work from this petitioner (PACS)
on the issue on what this Hon'ble Court has
decided that for the fault of the respondent
BSFC the food grains work not lifted from
the godown of the petitioner and further
pray for direction to respondents to lift the
balance quantity of CMR wheat has from
alleged not from supplied to the
corporation as the District Magistrate after
enquiry has found the some CMR in the
godown of the petitioner at the relevant
post of time and other prayers.
5. That it is relevant to mention here that the
petitioner has filed writ application for
direction to lift balance CMR, which has
from alleged not from supplied to the
corporation, but the District Magistrate
after enquiry has found the some CMR in
the petitioner's godown, and also the
petitioner has pray for pay milling and
transportation charge of he paddy and also
the rent of the godown.
It is relevant to mention here that the
petitioner's prayer is against policy
decision by Government of Bihar and
BSFC and also containing own prayers due
to the petitioner's prayer for lift the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
5/14
balance CMR after cutt off dates fixed by
Government of India procurement year
2017-18 and the petitioner has admitted
that the petitioner has use own
transporting for received paddy and
wanting transporting charge.
6. That as per policy decision, the petitioner's
PACS is liability to deposited / supplied
CMR to BSFC godown within cutt off date
and after cutt off date 31.7.2018, the
procurement year 2017-18 by closed and
that facts are mentioned in L.P.A.
No.1141/2016 vide order dated 15.10.15 in
petitioner/s case as Annexure-13 to writ
petition.
7. That in the light of order dated 15.10.19
passed in LPA No.1141 of 2018, the present
writ petition is not maintainable and also
bar res judicata due to the petitioner has
earlier filed writ petition in same prayer in
C.W.J.C. No.14890 of 2018 vide order
dated 30.7.18 as Annexure 9 to writ
petition.
8. That the petitioner has earlier filed writ
application for identical issue in C.W.J.C.
No. 14890 of 2018 before this Hon'ble
High Court, Patna and the Hon'ble Court
has passed vide order dated 30.7.18 as
Annexure-9 to writ petition.
9. That there the answering respondent has
filed appeal against vide order dated
30.7.18 in LPA No.1141 of 2018 and
Hon'ble Division Bench has considered
and passed order dated 15.10.19 as
Annexure -13 to writ petition.
10. That as compliance of the Hon'ble Division
Bench order dated 15.10.19, the Principal
Secretary, Food and Consumer protection
department, Govt. of Bihar has considered
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
6/14
the petitioner's case after and notice vice
memo No. 87 dated 7.1.20 to petitioner and
final order passed vide memo No. 1302
dated 12.3.20 as Annexure 16 to writ
petition.
11. That as per order dated 17.3.2020, the
Secretary, food & Consumer Protection
department, Patna has constituted a three
men committee headed by District
Magistrate, Madhepura and directed to lift
CMR with PACS as (Fair Average Quality).
12. That in compliance of the aforesaid
order/instruction, the thee men committee
headed by District Magistrate Madhepura
in examined and passed order dated
21.5.20 and stated that 100 quintal of CMR
is found in earth and that quality is not
FAQ and also not use of human and also
recommended for balance quantity has not
received by BSFC due to aforesaid reason
as Annexure-17 to writ petition.
13. That in compliance of Hon'ble Division
Bench order, the petitioner has already
accepted all direction and order since
2020. But the petitioner has again filed
writ on identical prayer and own admission
order, before this Hon'ble Court.”
3. Supplementary counter affidavit was also filed by
the respondent nos.7 and 8 wherein it is stated as follows:-
“5. That the petitioner's prayer for agreement
of milling work and for accepting the CMR
in whatever (perished) condition it is, as
well as its claim for payment, are not
tenable as the Respondent authorities have
already resolved the dispute in the light of
order dated 15.10.2019 passed in LPA No.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
7/14
1141 of 2018 and the petitioner has been
found in default of CMR, thus undermining
its entitlement to any benefits. As such the
present petition under reply is barred by
the principle of res judicata.
6. That as per the report of the District
Cooperative Officer, Madhepura, as stated
in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the
reported quantity of purchased paddy by
the petitioner is only 46.80 quintals,
significantly lower than the claimed 1101
quintals. Whereas the targeted quantity
was fixed at 300 quintals. This discrepancy
indicates a default on the part of the
petitioner.
7. That the petitioner claimed that he still had
the CMR converted from paddy with him
and contested this matter before the
Hon'ble Court by way of different
litigations and finally order dated
15.10.2019 was passed in LPA No. 1141 of
2018 with a direction to the Principal
Secretary, Department of Food and Civil
Supplies, Government of Bihar to examine
all facts, and any other relevant fact, and
then pass an appropriate order.
8. That accordingly Respondent No. 2 passed
a reasoned order vide Memo No. 1302
dated 12.03.2020 as contained in
Annexure-16 to the writ petition and
constituted a three-man committee headed
by the District Magistrate, Madhepura to
assess whether the remaining CMR with
the petitioner is acceptable in its current
condition.
9. That after thorough examination, the
committee concluded, in its proceeding
dated 21.05.2020, that the remaining rice
is not of the desired Fair Average Quality
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
8/14
(FAQ) standard and has perished beyond
acceptable limits. It is not out of place to
mention that the chairman of the petitioner
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society
(PACS) was present during the
examination.
10. That more than three years have passed
since the order of the Secretary and the
committee's decision, yet the petitioner did
not challenge these orders before any
forum. Now, at this stage the principle of
res judicate comes into play, barring the
petitioner from re-agitating the matter.
11. That the Respondent Corporation, being a
commercial organization, operates with
policies aimed at safeguarding its own
interests and the broader public welfare.
Considering these policies, it is not
desirable for the Corporation to accept
perished CMR beyond the stipulated FAQ
standards. Furthermore, engaging in
business with a miller with a questionable
history is also deemed undesirable.”
4. Another supplementary counter affidavit was filed
by the respondent nos.7 and 8 wherein it is stated as follows:-
“4. That the petitioner has filed interlocutory
application for direction to respondent
authority to enter into the Agreement with
the petitioner's PACS of the KMS 2024-25
for milling of paddy and further pray for
quashing the past order dated 20.3.20
passed by Secretary Food and Consumer
protection Department Bihar by which
secretary has constituted a enquiry
committee to enquiry and also quashed the
enquiry report dated 21.5.2020.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
9/14
5. That the present interlocutory application is
not maintainable due to the petitioner has
accepted vide order memo No. 1302 dated
12.3.2020 as Annexure-16 and order vide
memo No. dated 21.5.20. The petitioner
has challenge the aforesaid order through
I.A. after received counter affidavit has
been filed by the respondents.
6. That the petitioner has filed writ application
and prayer is identical/same in earlier writ
application i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 14890 of 2018
and bar by res judicata and second
objection, the petitioner has accepted order
dated 12.3.2020 and 21.5.2020 and
challenge after more than four years.
7. That the petitioner is defaulter miller and
defalcated public food grain and that
allegation are true after passed order in
compliance of Hon'ble Court order dated
30.7.2018 passed in LPA No. 1141/2018.
8. That the petitioner has filed writ application
since 2023, and not challenge the aforesaid
order, therefore two procurement year has
been program and closed i.e. 2022-23 and
2023-24.
It is relevant to mention here that as
per guide line no any defaulter
miller/PACS has allowed to participate in
paddy procurement/milling.
9. That in compliance of order dated 30.7.2018
passed in LPA No. 1141/2018, the
petitioner is a defaulter miller and
defalcated public food grain with criminal
conspiracy.”
5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the
respective parties has been pleased to hold as follows:-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
10/14
“9. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has
approached this Court after lapse of more
than five years from the procurement year
2017-18 and three years from the date of
last report by the authorities to lift the
CMR, there is no explanation whatsoever
in the present writ petition explaining the
delay in approaching this Court. Further,
it is to be noted that there are seriously
disputed questions of fact which cannot be
gone into by this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Though the
enquiry report was submitted by the
authorities on 21.05.2020 (Annexure-17),
the petitioner has challenged the same
only in the year 2023.
10. In Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., (5
supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
"3. ....It is to be reiterated that
writ petition under Article 226 is not
the proper proceedings for
adjudicating such disputes. Under
the law, it was open to the
respondent to approach the court of
competent jurisdiction for
appropriate relief for breach of
contract. It is settled law that when
an alternative and equally
efficacious remedy is open to the
litigant, he should be required to
pursue that remedy and not invoke
the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court. Equally, the existence of
alternative remedy does not affect
the jurisdiction of the court to issue
writ, but ordinarily that would be a
good ground in refusing to exercise
the discretion under Article 226.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
11/14
7. …..It is true that many matters
could be decided after
referring to the contentions
raised in the affidavits and
counter-affidavits, but that
would hardly be a ground for
exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution in case of
alleged breach of contract.
Whether the alleged non-
supply of road permits by the
appellants would justify breach
of contract by the respondent
would depend upon facts and
evidence and is not required to
be decided or dealt with in a
writ petition. Such seriously
disputed questions or rival
claims of the parties with
regard breach of contract are
to be investigated and
determined on the basis of
evidence which may be led by
the parties in a properly
instituted civil suit rather than
by a Court exercising
prerogative of issuing writs."
(empahsis supplied)"
11. Further in Sana Radha v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine AP 326 (at
para 9) has held as under;
"This Court cannot also state
simply that since there are disputed
questions of fact it will not enter into
the areas of controversy. This Court
has a duty to spell out what are the
disputed questions of fact, which need
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
12/14
to be established and adjudicated.
Therefore, the issues that are spelt out
are for the limited purpose of
pointing out the matters which in the
opinion of the Court need to be
proved in a Civil Court through
proper pleading and evidence. In the
opinion of this Court, these are all the
matters of pleading and evidence,
which are best addressed and decided
in a regular civil suit. In the opinion
of this Court, a civil suit is the
proper and efficacious remedy for
this case and not a Writ. Disputed
question cannot be decided in the
Writ."
12. Having regard to the same, this Court does
not find any merit in the present writ
petition which warrants any interference
by this Hon'ble Court. The present writ
petition is dismissed on the ground of
latches and also on the ground that there
are seriously disputed questions of fact
which cannot be gone into by this Court.
The CWJC is accordingly, dismissed
granting liberty to the petitioner to
approach the Civil Court for payment of
the dues or damages from the respondent-
BSFC, if he is so advised.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is entitled to get the relief as sought for as they are in
no way responsible for the deterioration of the quality of the
paddy and it was on account of the negligence and laches of the
authorities concerned that the quality of the paddy got
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
13/14
deteriorated for which the Corporation did not accept the same.
7. However, we find that not only earlier such matter
was agitated before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.14890 of 2018
and in L.P.A. No.1141 of 2018 but also the learned Single Judge
is quite justified in observing that there are disputed questions of
fact and has rightly passed the order giving liberty to the
appellant to approach the Civil Court for payment of dues or the
damages from the B.S.F.C.
8. A Letters Patent Appeal, as permitted under the
Letters Patent, is normally an intra-Court appeal whereunder the
Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects
its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested
in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a
Subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction, the High
Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. (Ref: (1996) 3
Supreme Court Cases 52, Baddula Lakshmaiah -Vrs.- Shri
Anjaneya Swami Temple). The Division Bench in Letters Patent
Appeal should not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the
learned Single Judge of the Court unless it is shown to be based
on no evidence, perverse, palpably unreasonable or inconsistent
with any particular position in law. This scope of interference is
within a narrow compass. Appellate jurisdiction under Letters
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2025 dt.28-01-2026
14/14
Patent is really a corrective jurisdiction and it is used rarely only
to correct errors, if any made.
9. After going through the pleadings, the counter
affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavits filed and after
hearing the parties, we find that there is no perversity in the
order of the learned Single Judge in not entertaining the writ
petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact and
simultaneously giving the appellant liberty to approach the Civil
Court for payment of dues or damages from B.S.F.C.
10. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this
Letters Patent Appeal, which stands dismissed.
11. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Jyoti Kumari/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 29.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.