ORAL ORDER This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 1st August 2011 insofar as the above C.W.J.C. No. 11037 of 2011 has been disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the value of the undistributed rice @ Rs.10/- per kilogram or the rice itself in the present form, if already not deposited. 2. The appellant is a licensee of a fair price shop. It appears that under the scheme of ‘Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojna’ framed by the Central Government the dealers under public distribution system were allotted certain quantity of rice to be distributed amongst the beneficiaries as envisaged by the Scheme under the scheme during the years 2002 to 2006. It appears that the said rice was not distributed to the beneficiaries. Consequently, pursuant to the audit report, the State Government has called upon the appellant and such other licensees to pay price of the undistributed rice @ Rs.13.10 per kilogram. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 11037 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned single Judge has, pursuant to the order made in C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 issued direction that the impugned communication be treated as a show-cause notice and that the authority below will make the final order after receiving reply from the writ petitioner. Further the learned single Judge has issued the direction to deposit 20% of the value of the undistributed rice @ Rs.10/-per kilogram as recorded hereinabove. 4. It is the aforesaid direction to deposit 20% of the value of the undistributed rice, which is the subject matter of challenge before us. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant has been meted discriminatory treatment by issuing direction to deposit 20% of the value of the undistributed rice. He has submitted that in the above referred C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 no such direction was issued. He has further submitted that judicial discipline requires that identical relief is granted; the condition imposed upon the appellant, therefore, is unwarranted. He has also submitted that the impugned direction amounts to adjudication of issue against the appellant. Mr. Gupta has also submitted that as early as in 2006 the appellant had offered to return the undistributed rice. He has further submitted that judicial discipline requires that identical relief is granted; the condition imposed upon the appellant, therefore, is unwarranted. He has also submitted that the impugned direction amounts to adjudication of issue against the appellant. Mr. Gupta has also submitted that as early as in 2006 the appellant had offered to return the undistributed rice. The respondents, however, did not respond to the said request. Rice being perishable article, the demand for the price of the rice is atrocious. 6. We are of the opinion that the ends of justice can be met if the order of the learned single judge is modified to the effect that, without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised in the writ petition, the appellant deposits the sum equivalent to 15% of the value of the undistributed rice @ Rs. 10/- per kilogram within six weeks from today. Order accordingly. 7. The issue will be decided by the Deputy Development Commissioner/competent authority within two months from the date the appellant makes the deposit as directed hereinabove. 8. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.