DDC must conduct personal hearings and pass reasoned orders to determine liability for undistributed SGRY food grains.

The petitioner, Ram Nath Prasad, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Notice Memo No. 624 dated 03.05.2017.

The notice, issued by the Block Development Officer (OBDO), Bairiya, directed the petitioner to refund the value of undistributed rice under the Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna (SGRY) for the period 2002–06.

The petitioner challenged the recovery rate, which was calculated at Rs. 13.70 per kg instead of Rs. 8.78 per kg, totaling a sum of Rs. 5,66,238.

Both parties conceded that the issue is identical to matters previously adjudicated by the Court.

1. Whether the impugned notice for refund of the value of undistributed rice was issued mechanically and whether the liability and quantification of the amount require fresh adjudication by the competent authority.

The Court relied on the precedent established by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Pramod Baitha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 20474 of 2021).

This precedent establishes that in matters concerning the recovery of SGRY grain value where facts were not previously examined by a Commission of Inquiry, the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC) is the appropriate authority to conduct a personal hearing, determine individual responsibility, and pass a reasoned order.

The Court noted the consensus between the petitioner and the State that the matter is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the Pramod Baitha judgment.

The Court observed that since the specific facts regarding the petitioner’s alleged failure to distribute rice had not been examined by a three-member commission of inquiry, it was necessary for the administrative authorities to "look into the matter dispassionately".

By applying the directions from the cited precedent, the Court shifted the determination of fault and the quantification of the refund amount from the mechanical notice issued by the BDO to a quasi-judicial inquiry to be conducted by the DDC.

DDC is ordered to hear the petitioner or their representative, fix responsibility, and pass a reasoned order within ten weeks; if the petitioner is found not at fault, no recovery shall be made; if found liable, the quantified amount must be returned.

The Court ordered that "no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner" until the final order is passed by the DDC.