IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19453 of 2011 Jageshwar Das, son of Late Ragho Das, resident of Bibhutipur East, P.S.-Bibhutipur, Distt.-Samastipur. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Dy. Development Commissioner, Samastipur. 3. The Block Development Officer, Bibhutipur, Distt.-Samastipur. 4. The Officer-in-charge, Bibhutipur police station, Samastipur. . . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2/ 07.12.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add officer-in-charge, Bibhutipur police station as respondent no.4. The petitioner, who is a P.D.S. dealer within Bibhutipur in the district of Samastipur, prays for quashing Memo nos. 1974 and 1991, both dated 12.08.2011, whereby he has been directed to refund the value of 629 quintals of rice allotted under F.F.W. Scheme and 110 quintals of rice under SGRY Scheme at A.P.L. rate of Rs.13.70 per kg. The petitioner submits that the quantity has been calculated on the basis of amount shown in the impugned memo for the sake of convenience. The petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ application stated that the area is flood prone and much of the rice has been damaged in the last flood. The petitioner also submits that some rice had also rusted, as the respondents did not take back the rice, though the same has been lying with the petitioner for last 4 to 5 years. Counsel for the State submits that the 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 with the condition that the petitioner would either deposit 10% of the value of total undistributed rice, which comes to the tune of 739 quintals at Rs.10 per Kg. or the rice itself, if already not deposited within six weeks from today. The petitioner would file representation before respondent no.3 within four weeks from today, which would be disposed of within a further period of three months. Till then no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)