Judgment Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 1. While for the first time hearing the matter on 16.7.98 on interlocutory application, this Court adjourned the matter for 19th August, 1998 for further hearing and this Court directed that till date no coercive step should be taken in Certificate proceeding. However, even in spite of granting of time on 19.8.98 and the State counsel writing for instruction as no instruction was received on 16.9.98, this application was admitted and pending final hearing interim order dated 16.7.98 was directed to be continued. 2. Again even at the stage of hearing on 11.5.2000 and 26.7.2000 this matter after hearing the parties had been adjourned specifically in view of stand of the state that they are likely to receive instruction in the matter. 3. On 6.11.2000, when the matter was heard in part in view of stand of the petitioner that the money in question has already been refunded, it was directed to the counsel for the respondents to verify the aforesaid fact as to whether the money which has been refunded had been received by the authorities or not as the counter-affidavit filed by them did not speak a word about the same. It is contended by the State counsel that he sent letters and wireless message for the same but no one had come to answer the query. On 23.11.2000 also, when the matter was taken up the same was adjourned for the same purpose and a fresh wireless message was sent to the authorities but to no avail. As such, this Court does not have any option but to dispose of the writ application in view of averments made in the writ application itself. 4. Petitioner is the F.C.I, who had moved this Court through its District Manager, District Office, Gaya for quashing the notice as contained in Annexure-6, by which a certificate proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner as the amount deposited by the District Officer, Gaya being the cost of wheat had not been refunded to the District Administration. 5. Contention of earned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna for the year 1996-97 an allotment of 67600 M.T. of wheat had been made by the Ministry of Rural & Employment, Government of India in Bihar Region. 5. Contention of earned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna for the year 1996-97 an allotment of 67600 M.T. of wheat had been made by the Ministry of Rural & Employment, Government of India in Bihar Region. The said quantity of wheat was to be lifted by the State Government from the depose of the F.C.I., after deposit of price for lifting of wheat as per the district-wise allotment. The State Government allotted 963.95 M.T. of wheat for the district of Bhabua by its letter dated 1.7.96 and the District Magistrate, Kaimur vide its letter dated 11.3.96 informing the District Manager, F.C.I., Gaya for releasing half of the allotted wheat, i.e., 481, 97 M.T. on receipt of the draft for the price amounting to Rs. 17,81,361.10 paise for which one Surendra Kumar Srivastava, Extension Officer was authorised. District Officer after receiving the draft issued release orders dated 15.3.96 in favour of the District Magistrate, Bhabua which was received by the said Surendra Kumar Srivastava and was valid upto 13.3.96. However, as the wheat was not lifted, validity of the allotment order was extended up to March 1997 and the same was also communicated to the District Magistrate, Bhabua but in spite of the same the wheat in question had not been lifted. When by letter dated 4.6.97 the District Magistrate, Bhabua requested the F.C.I., to refund the aforesaid amount to the authorities. The F.C.I., by Annexure-4 communicated to them that there was a procedure for refund and the refund would be made if the aforesaid procedure was adopted and by Annexure-5 dated 29.11.97 they applied as per the procedure and it is further contended that the F.C.I., by cheque No. 095680 dated 23.12.97 and No. 81938 dated 16.1.98 refunded the amount deposited by the District Magistrate. However, prior to the date a certificate case was registered for recovery of the aforesaid amount and notice was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-6. 6. The question which arises to be decided in the present case as to whether the aforesaid demand is a public demand required to be recovered under the Public Demand Recovery Act or as t whether once the money had been refunded after the authorities of the State applied after following the procedure whether such a proceeding pursuant to the aforesaid notice should be allowed to be continued? 7. 7. In spite of repeated indulgence by this Court, the authorities have still not brought on record any material to show that they have received the amount in question. But, the petitioner also being the functionary of the Union of India and responsible officer on affidavit giving cheque number and the amount refunded to the District Magistrate, Bhabua being the equal to the amount which was deposited by them, this Court though prima facie being satisfied that the aforesaid demand not being the public demand should not have been tried to be recovered under the Public Demand Recovery Act but as the question now becomes academic refrained from deciding the same the money deposited by the District Magistrate has already been satisfied as per the averment made in the writ application which has not been controverted this Court accepting the same quashes the notice as contained in Annexure-6. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed and Annexure-6 and stands quashed.