Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) BEFORE I proceed with the matter, the order passed by this Court on 13/03/2014, needs to be reproduced, which reads as follows: - "Mr. S.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in a writ application, directing the Secretary to pass a fresh order after taking into account the ground taken by the petitioner in his representation and also the report submitted by the Director, the Secretary passed an order on 31/07/2013, but he did not take into account the fact, which was there in the report of the Director, rather he based his finding on the report of Mr. B.B. Mishra, though there was no such direction. At the same time, the ground taken in the show cause was also not taken into account. After hearing, when this Court did find the submission to be correct, the Secretary was again directed to reconsider it and to pass an order. Thereupon, an order was passed on 09/10/2013, but again it was not in consonance with the order passed by this Court. Subsequently, the Secretary, on his own, passed an order on 16/12/2013, perhaps on account of observation made by this Court during hearing of this case. In this regard, it was submitted that the Secretary, while passing such order has again reiterated that since the samples of Micro -nutrient (Fertilizer) supplied by the petitioner could be tested for only four Districts, i.e. Latehar, Simdega, Dhanbad and Ranchi, no order for payment would be passed for supply of Micro -nutrient at other Districts, unless and until report of the quality of the Micro -nutrient, supplied by the petitioner is received from the laboratory at Navi Mumbai. From the report it is evident that for rest of the Districts Micro -nutrient had never been sent for its chemical examination and in that event the concerned Districts may not get report in this regard and, therefore, it can be said that in order to deny the rightful claim of the petitioner, this order has been passed, which is not in consonance with the order passed by this Court. Further, it was submitted that Mr. B.B. Mishra, in his report has raised doubt over certain documents relating to supply of the Micro -nutrient in different Districts, but the Director, in his report, has categorically stated that the material, which had been supplied, has been entered in the relevant register, maintained by each Districts and if that is so, there has been no reason on the part of any other authority to dispute about supply of the materials. Any such doubt raised by the Secretary on the basis of the report of Mr. B.B. Mishra, would not be proper and under the circumstances, it becomes quite obvious that O.P. No. 2 has not complied the order passed by this Court and has made himself liable to be prosecuted under the Court of Contempt Act. As against this, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it is evident that the sample Micro -nutrient, which had been supplied by this petitioner in all the Districts of Jharkhand could be tested only for four Districts and, therefore, the order has been passed to the effect that unless and until report is received, the petitioner would not be entitled to get payment. On this issue, when Mr. Rajesh Kumar was asked as to whether Micro -nutrient, which had been supplied by the petitioner in the year 2009 is still available, he raised his doubt that it may not be available. If it is not available, how it can be tested in a laboratory. Moreover, even if, it is available in the Districts the quality or the ingredients of Micro -nutrient may not be same after passing of such a long time. Under the circumstances, the Secretary may not have had report in this regard. Further, I do find that Mr. Mishra had raised doubt over supply of the materials to the different District on account of some discrepancies found with the documents related to supply of the materials, but the Director, in his report, has reported that the materials, which were supplied, had been entered in the stock of other Districts. Nothing has been placed to raise doubt over such entries made by the authorities in different Districts, still doubt has been raised over the quantity, which was supplied by the petitioner in each District. Under the circumstances, the authority is again required to reconsider the matter and to pass a fresh order within a period of three weeks from today. Let this matter be listed on 03/04/2014. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State."
(2.) PURSUANT to that direction an order was passed on 24/03/2014, wherein the same thing has been reiterated which was there in the order dated 16/12/2013, in spite of the fact that direction had been given for reconsideration of the matter. Only, one additional ground was recorded to the effect that the Director, Agriculture, had not given his opinion with respect to the matter pertaining to column nos. 7 & 9 and, therefore, it has been recorded that the report of the Director was not worth considerable. From the submissions advanced and also from the order passed on 13/03/2014, two things get emerged out; (1) In spite of sample of Micro -nutrient, supplied in the Districts other than four Districts namely, Ranchi, Latehar, Dhanbad and Simdega, being not sent for its chemical examination, still order is being recorded that until and unless report in this regard is received, no order would be passed with respect to payment. (2) Certain objection has been taken by Mr. Mishra in its report regarding supply of Micro -nutrient, but the Director in its report has not said anything in this respect and, therefore, doubt has been raised as to whether the claim of the petitioner of supplying certain quantity of Micro -nutrient is genuine or not?
(3.) WITH respect to first objection it be stated that when the samples of Micro -nutrient supplied to the other Districts as stated above, have not been sent for its chemical examination how the report in this regard would be received and, as such, objection taken in this regard appears to be quite irrational beyond comprehension of any person of ordinary prudence, arbitrary and illegal. So far as second objection is concerned, it has been reported by the Director in its report that the quantity of the Micro -nutrient, supplied by the petitioner in the Districts can be verified from the records of the Districts. Admittedly, it has not been verified, still order has been passed that the petitioner has not supplied the quantity to the extent, which the appellant has. There any opinion framed is without any basis.;