IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.454 of 2011 Sunil Kumar, son of Late Bhagwan Singh, resident of Parsa, P.S.- Parsa, District- Patna. . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Dy. Development Commissioner, Patna. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna. 4. The Block Development Officer, Phulwarisariff, Patna. 5. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Chilbilli, Phulwarisariff, Patna. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 27.06.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.12.2010, as contained in Memo no. 2285 and 2291, issued by Block Development Officer, Phulwarisarif, Patna, directing for realization of price at APL rate of the rice, which remained undistributed under Sampurana Gramin Rojgar Yojna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SGRY Scheme’). The petitioner submits that he lifted 917.91 quintals of rice between 2002 to 2006 under the 50 % SGRY Scheme. He submits that under 30 % of the SGRY Scheme he lifted 461 quintals of rice for the same period. Learned counsel submits that rice was to be distributed only against the permits to be issued by the authorities. He further submits that he distributed 647.97 quintals of rice against 50 % of the SGRY Scheme and 93 quintals of rice against 30 % of the SGRY Scheme, for which he only received permits. The petitioner could not distribute the rest quantity of rice, as he did not receive necessary permits for the remaining quantity. The petitioner submits that over the years some rice has got contaminated and is not fit for human consumption. He further submits that it was unjust for the authorities to ask for refund of the rice at a high 2 rate of Rs. 13.70 per Kg. The petitioner submits that similar issue was involved in C.W.J.C. No.16366 of 2009 ( Satyadeo Rai Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) disposed of on 28.02.2011. The learned Judge earlier observed that the impugned demand notice be treated as show cause to which petitioner would file his reply and till then no coercive action would be taken against him. Counsel for the State submits that as per own submissions of petitioner, he has not distributed the entire quantities of rice allotted to him. I too observe that the impugned memo dated 11.12.2010 be treated as show cause, to which the petitioner would file his reply. The authorities would ascertain the quantity allotted, for which permits were issued and the quantity that would remain balance with petitioner. The final order should be passed within three months. Till disposal of the representation, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)