IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17162 of 2011 1. Zeyaur Rahman S/O Late Shafi Ahmad Resident Of Village And P.O. Siswa, P.S. Banjaria, District-East Champaran. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Collector, District East Champaran. 3. The D.D.C. East Champaran. 4. Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari. 5. The Block Development Officer, Banjaria Block, District-East Champaran. 6. The Block Supply Offcer, Banjaria Block, District-East Champaran. 7. The Marketing Officer, Banjaria Block, District-East Champaran. 8. Mirtunay Kumar Singh, Presently Posted As Clerk In District Agriculture Office, S/O Not Known Chatauni, P.S. Chatauni, Town-Motihari, Distt.-East Champaran. 2 16.11.2011 The petitioner who is a P.D.S. dealer within Banjaria Block in the district of East Champaran prays for quashing of memo no.815 dated 24.6.2011 (Annexure-4) and memo no.1123 dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the Block Development Officer, Banjaria whereby he has been directed to refund the value of undistributed rice allotted under SGRY scheme at APL rate of Rs.13.70 per Kgs. The petitioner submits that by order dated 24.6.2011 the Block Development officer, Banjaria directed the petitioner to refund the value of 85 quintals of undistributed rice @ Rs.9.14 per Kgs. The petitioner states that in fact he had lifted 230 quintals of foodgrains out of which 224.63 quintals of rice had been distributed and only 5.37 quintals of undistributed rice remains with him. However, in order to save himself from any coercive measures, the petitioner deposited the value of entire 85 quintals of rice @ Rs.9.14 per Kgs as demanded by the Block Development Officer, Banjaraia. The petitioner further submits that by another memo 2 KHAN no.1123 dated 4.8.2011 issued by the Block Development Officer, Banjaraia, he was directed to deposit the difference of the value of rice while calculating the rice @ Rs.13.70 per Kgs. In other words, the respondent authorities have directed the petitioner to deposit further a sum of Rs.38,760/-. The petitioner submits that even the aforesaid amount was deposited by one Mirtunjay Singhy, an official of the State Government. He further submits that in any view of the matter nothing remains due against him and in fact the petitioner had deposited much in excess the value of the quantity of rice that has remained undistributed. In this view of the matter, the demand notice as contained in memo no.815 dated 24.6.2011 (Annexure-4) and memo no.1123 dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the Block Development Officer, Banjaria have become redundant and thus hereby quashed. In the result, this writ application is allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)