IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12718 of 2011 1. Kadildeo Singh son of Shri Nemnarayan Singh, Resident of Village- Baragandhar, Police Station-Mofasil, District- Gaya. 2. Pintu Kumar, son of Shri Kapildeo Singh, Resident of Village- Nauranga, Police Station-Mofasil, District- Gaya. 3. Baliram Singh son of Shri Ganga Singh, Resident of Village- Lakhanpur, Police Station-Mofasil, District- Gaya. 4. Jitendra Kumar son of Late Hardeep Singh, Resident of Village- Kaiya, Police Station-Mofasil, District- Gaya. 5. Mahmood Alam, son of Nasirudeen Alam, Resident of Village- Vadeji, Police Station-Mofasil, District- Gaya. 6. Chandu Paswan son of Late Dodraj Paswan, Resident of Village- Sohaipur, Police Station-Mofasil, District- Gaya. 7. Vinay Kumar Singh son of Shri Jagat Kishore Singh, Resident of Village- Nanouk, Police Station-Buniyadganj, District- Gaya. 8. Suchit Kumar Singh @ Suchit Kumar son of Shri Bindeshwer Singh, Resident of Village- Shadipur, Police Station-Buniyadganj, District- Gaya. 9. Jagdish Manjhi son of late Fagu Manjhi, Resident of Village- Kamalpur, Police Station-Mofasil, District- Gaya. . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 5. Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development Authority, Gaya. 6. Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya -cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Gaya. 7. Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya Sadar, District- Gaya. 8. Block Development Officer, Manpur, District- Gaya. 9. Block Supply Officer, Manpur, District- Gaya. . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2/ 11.08.2011 All the nine petitioners are P.D.S. dealers and have due license for the same. They received rice under Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana (hereinafter referred as ‘the SGRY Scheme’) between the years 2002 to 2006 to be distributed against the permits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is admitted fact that sufficient number of permits were not 2 issued, as such large quantity of rice remained undistributed for over five years. The respondents did not care to take back the rice for five years. Furthermore, the rice is a perishable commodity. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order has been passed without meeting the points raised in the show-cause. 3. Mr. Rajeev Roy G.P.-5, submits that the petitioners are required to return the admitted rice that had remained undistributed. 4. In the instant case, I find that the show-cause was issued to the petitioners to deposit the value of undistributed rice and petitioners filed their reply to it. I further find that the impugned order has not met the points in reply. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the impugned order with the following directions: (a) If the petitioners file representation regarding the allotment of quantity of rice under the SGRY Scheme, the same be made available as far as possible. In this respect the petitioners should also check their records to ascertain the quantity of rice given to them. (b) The petitioners would be at liberty to file any further representations giving any additional points. (c) The petitioners would deposit 20% of undistributed rice in its present form or its value at Rs.10 per Kg. within two months from today. No coercive action would be 3 taken against the petitioners. 5. The concerned respondent would pass a fresh order preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of representation, which should be filed preferably within three weeks. 6. This application stands disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)