IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18830 of 2011 Sargoo Singh Son Of Late Doman Singh Resident Of Village - Pipra, P.S.- Jamhor, District - Aurangabad Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supply, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad 6. The Block Development Officer, Baroon, Aurangabad ---------------------------------- 2 15.12.2011. The petitioner who is a PDS dealer within Barun block of Aurangabad district prays for quashing letter no. 1717 dated 8.9.2011 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad, whereby he has been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 3,79,049/- towards the value of undistributed rice to the tune of 289.35 quintals, allotted under SGR Yojana. The petitioner disputes the quantity and submits that it would appear form notice dated 30.6.2011, contained in Letter no. 104, of the Block Development Officer, Barun that only 75.68 quintals rice valuing Rs. 99,141/- remained due with him. However, he has paid the entire amount of Rs. 99,141/-. In support of his submission, the petitioner has referred to various receipts contained in Annexure 3 series. He submits that ignoring the factual aspect, respondents have issued aforesaid demand notice. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the demand notice dated 8.9.2011 has been issued on the basis of audit report. The demand notice of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 8.9.2011 and the Block Development Officer, Barun dated 30.6.2011 differs with each other, regarding the quantity of rice that would be still lying with the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 6.7.2011, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 (Awadh 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 petitioner would file a detailed representation before respondent no.4 within six weeks from today, which would be disposed of within further eight weeks. No coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner till disposal of the representation. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)