IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14535 of 2011 Harun Rashid, Chairman Fulwary Pacs S/O Md. Sarfuddin R/O Vill. Salaiya, Gram Panchayat Salaiya, P.S. Kothi, Distt.-Gaya. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya. 4. The Block Development Officer, Imamganj, Gaya. 5. The Panchayat Secretary, Salaiya Gram Panchayat, Imamganj, Distt. Gaya. 6. The Mukhiya, Salaiya Gram Panchayat, Imamganj, Gaya. . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2/ 12.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who is a P.D.S. dealer within Imamganj Block in the district of Gaya, prays for quashing the notice dated 05.07.2011 issued under the signature of Sub- Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya, whereby he has been directed to refund the value of undistributed rice to the tune of 86 quintals under SGRY Scheme and to the tune of 86 quintals under Food for Work Scheme at A.P.L. rate of Rs.13.70 per kg. The petitioner in paragraph 12 of the writ petition has stated that the entire 86 quintals of rice under SGRY Scheme and 72 quintals of rice under Food for Work Scheme have been distributed against the permits issued by the authorities. The petitioner thus submits that only 14 quintals of rice under Food for Work Scheme would remain with him. Counsel for the State submits that submission of the petitioner is subject to verification. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order 2 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 petitioner would deposit the remaining 14 quintals of rice or the value of undistributed rice at Rs.10 per Kg. as claimed by him within 8 weeks from today, if already not deposited. No coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner subject to the aforesaid observations and directions. I want to make it clear that I have not gone into the dispute regarding the quantity of rice that would remain with the petitioner, as claimed by the rival parties. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)