IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.467 of 2011 MANOJ KUMAR, CHILBILLI, POLICE STATION BEUR, PATNA . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DDC PATNA 3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR PATNA 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FULWARISHARIF 5. THE MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT CHILBILLI, PHULWARISHARIFF. ----------- 3 30.06.2011. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing order dated 11.12.2010 contained in Memo no. 2285 and 2291 respectively issued by the Block Development Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna directing the petitioner to deposit the money @ Rs. 13.70/ kg for the rice that has remained with him. The petitioner is a PDS dealer under Patna Sadar in the District of Patna having Licence no.97 of 2007. Under the Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana ( in short the SGRY) 50% scheme issued by the respondent authority, the petitioner was allotted 724.91 quintals of rice in the year 2002-06 against which he distributed only 249 quintals. Similarly, under the different allotment orders, the petitioner lifted 442 quintals of rice in the year 2002-06 under the 30% SGR Yojana. The petitioner submits that as per the Government scheme, he could distribute rice only against permits 2 issued. Learned counsel submits that he was granted permit for 249 quintal of rice under 50% scheme and 167 quintals under 30% scheme. As such, he could distribute only 249 quintals under 50% scheme and 167 quintals under the 30% scheme. Thus the petitioner could not distribute 475.91 quintals of rice under 50 percent scheme and 274 quintals of rice under 30 % of the scheme. Now after lapse of 4 to 5 years refund at the rate of Rs. 13.70/- kg is being demanded for unsold rice. He submits that at the time of allotment of rice, the price of rice was less. The petitioner submits that on account of non-issuance of sufficient permits, all rice could not be sold and quite a sizeable quantity had rusted. He submits that the authorities are themselves responsible for not issuing sufficient permit for issuance of rice and not having sought refund earlier in 2007. Counsel for the State seeks time to file counter affidavit. I would have generally granted time to file counter affidavit but I find that similar issue has been disposed of vide order 4.3.2011, passed in CWJCNo. 6690 of 3 2010. In the aforesaid case the PDS dealers were directed to make payment for unsold rice under SGRYojana at the APL rate. The learned Single judge observed that impugned demand would be considered as show cause to which petitioner would file his detailed reply and till then no coercive action will be taken against him. As the facts and issues involved is similar, I too direct that the impugned memo dated 11.12.2010 contained in Annexure 1 and impugned memo no. 2291 dated 11.12.2010 contained in Annexure 11 be treated as show cause notice. The petitioner would submit his reply within 6 weeks from today. The authority would take into account the rice allotted, permits issued and the rice that remained undistributed on account of non issuance of sufficient permits. The authority would pass fresh order within three months thereof and till then no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner. Shashi ( S.P. Singh, J.)