IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1319 of 2011 Nawal Kishore Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.1544 of 2011 Kapildeo Pd. @ Kapildeo Pd. Sao Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.1662 of 2011 Dukh Haran Prasad Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.1765 of 2011 Ranveer Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.1780 of 2011 Ramanuj Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.2135 of 2011 Umesh Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.2501 of 2011 Manoj Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.5530 of 2011 Baleshwar Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.5656 of 2011 Babulal Rajbanshi Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors with CWJC No.5659 of 2011 Naresh Prasad & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors With 2 CWJC No.11348 of 2011 Bibha Kumari Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 27.07.2011 The petitioners, who are the licensee under the 1984 Unification Order as well as under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 pray for quashing the memo issued by the concerned authorities, directing refund of value of undistributed rice under 50 % and 30 % of Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SGRY Scheme’) in between the years 2002 to 2006 at APL rate of Rs.1310 per Kgs. Earlier similar matters have came up before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 (Awash Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) & C.W.J.C. No. 757 of 2011 (Suresh Prasad @ Raj Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The aforesaid writ application have been disposed of by order dated 06.07.2011 after noticing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. As the facts and issues are common, the order dated 06.07.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 and C.W.J.C. No. 757 of 2011 would also govern in all these writ applications. All these writ applications are disposed of in terms of the order dated 06.07.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 and C.W.J.C. No. 757 of 2011 including interim protection as mentioned therein, with the condition that the petitioners would either deposit 20% of the value of undistributed rice at APL rate or the rice itself, if already not deposited. This order would not 3 come in the way of petitioners and other dealers similarly placed, if they want to in deposit the value of rice or rice itself in excess of 20 %. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)