JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J. The present batch of Letters Patent Appeals arises out of common oral judgment dated 21.09.2015, whereby 141 writ petitions seeking quashing of the demand notice for the price of rice by the P.D.S. dealer and for quashing of the Certificate Proceeding under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act for realization of the price of rice from the P.D.S. dealer was disposed of. 2. Since all the Letters Patent Appeals involve the identical question of facts and law and as such, we have heard all the appeals and we are disposing of all the Letters Patent Appeals by this common judgment. 3. The oral judgment dated 21.09.2015 in the batch cases is testimony of the effort and pain taken by the learned Single Judge to work out the solution for grievances of P.D.S. dealer and to balance the State interest in realization of the price of rice, which could not be distributed under the Sampuran Gramin Rojgar Yojna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SGRY’) and remained with the P.D.S. dealers, as quantified by the C.A.G. and the Government of Bihar. 4. The Writ Court after marathon exercise disposed of the 141 writ applications by common judgment after considering the various aspect of the dispute by directing constitution of enquiry commission to look into the various facet of supply and distribution of the rice under SGRY scheme through P.D.S. dealer with a view to primarily fix the responsibility on the P.D.S. dealer, the Government Official in the matter of recovery of price of rice, which could not be distributed under the said SGRY scheme. The enquiry committee was constituted in view of the directions passed in similar facts situation by the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, as discussed in para. 85 and 86 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which is quoted herein below for ready reference : “85. Recourse to constitution of high level expert enquiry committee has been taken by the Apex Court and this Court time and again where the vexed question of fact and law is to be determined in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties. Recourse to constitution of high level expert enquiry committee has been taken by the Apex Court and this Court time and again where the vexed question of fact and law is to be determined in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties. As a matter of fact, when this Court has found it virtually impossible to decide the dispute in absence of all the relevant materials, it would find full justification to constitute a Committee and refer the dispute for collection of the relevant data or facts with the help of whom the dispute can be resolved. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the observation and direction given by the Apex Court in the case of Gulam Abbas & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1983 SC 1268 , Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 652 , in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 652 , M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India reported in (1986) 2 SCC 176 , in the case of Vishaljeet Vs. Union of India reported in (1990) 3 SCC 318 , in the case of Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1999) 2 SCC 131 and in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu reported in (1999) 2 SCC 718 . 86. As a matter of fact, in the case of Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs. Chairman, UPSEB & Ors. reported in 1998(2) SCC 66 , the Apex Court as with regard to the allegation of large scale theft of electricity and irregularity in the functioning of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board had constituted a high power committee to enquire into the allegation and submit a report. Even recently, a Division Bench of this Court of which I also was a member in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Sohan Roy reported in 2010(2) PLJR 397 as with regard to the illegal appointment in the Health Department had constituted a One Man Committee to look into the various facets of nature of appointment of the writ petitioners with a view to adjudicate the legality of their appointment and continuance in service.” 5. Vs. Sohan Roy reported in 2010(2) PLJR 397 as with regard to the illegal appointment in the Health Department had constituted a One Man Committee to look into the various facets of nature of appointment of the writ petitioners with a view to adjudicate the legality of their appointment and continuance in service.” 5. The Writ Court formulated the issue to be examined by the competent enquiry commission in para 89 of the judgment, which is quoted herein below for ready reference: 89. The Enquiry Commission for this purpose shall also go into the following aspects :- (i) The quantum of actual loss sustained to the government, in S.G.R.Y. (ii) The terms and conditions of allotment of rice to P.D.S. dealers under S.G.R.Y. for its distribution to the beneficiaries. (iii) The manner of allotment of rice to the PDS dealers. (iv) The payment of transportation/handling/storage charges to PDS dealers. (v) Price of rice on which recovery has to be made. (vi) Whether 5994 PDS dealers alone will be responsible for recovery of the aforesaid loss or even the officials entrusted with the task of regulating and monitoring the SGRY scheme including 48 Divisional Commissioners, 204 Collectors, 202 Deputy Development Commissioners, 412 Sub Divisional Officer apart from 2640 Block Development Officers as well as concerned person of Zila Parishad/Panchayat Samiti/Gram Panchayat including Panchayat Secretary and Mukhia. (vii) The Enquiry Commission in fact will also have to fix the quantum of amount of recovery to be made from the PDS dealers and/or officials so that not only 5994 PDS dealers being subjected to at least 689 criminal cases and 4985 certificate proceedings alone are not made liable in isolation unless the Enquiry Commission comes to a conclusion that the Government officials had discharged their duty religiously in the matter of monitoring and supervising SGRY scheme all over the State. (viii) The Enquiry Commission may also go into any other related aspect for ensuring recovery of the total loss of revenue caused to the state exchequer in the execution and implementation of the S.G.R.Y. scheme all over Bihar in the period 2002 to 2006. (ix) The Enquiry Commission shall also be free to make any interim as also final recommendation for recovery of entire loss of government revenue under S.G.R.Y. scheme. 6. (ix) The Enquiry Commission shall also be free to make any interim as also final recommendation for recovery of entire loss of government revenue under S.G.R.Y. scheme. 6. Thus, the judgment under appeal dated 21.09.2015 indicates that the extra pain was taken by the writ court in view of the facts that 4985 certificates proceedings and 689 criminal cases are pending with regard to recovery of price of rice, which remain undistributed by the 5994 P.D.S. dealer. The Writ Court vide different orders directed appearance of the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar and the Principal Secretary of the Department and passed various orders for filing of the one other supplementary counter affidavit and thereafter the writ court passed order for constitution of the enquiry commission after formulating the terms of reference. It may not be out of place to mention here that in order to protect the interest of the P.D.S. dealer and the State exchequer, an interim order was passed on 15.10.2014 that at least 50% of the certificate amount will be paid by the petitioners. The P.D.S. dealer in order to avail the benefits of order passed by the Writ Court pertains to impugned Certificate Proceeding was under obligation to obey the interim order dated 15.10.2014. The Writ Court on consideration of the 8th Supplementary affidavit and the circular of the Food Corporation of India dated 25/27.10.2005 and the report of the C.A.G. noted that price of the rice would be only Rs. 13.70 per kg. The Writ Court not only directed the enquiry commission to submit report on certain factual aspect as to the liability of the P.D.S. dealer but also directed the enquiry commission to make any interim or final recommendation for recovery of entire loss of the Government under SGRY during period 2002-06. The Writ Court also directed the Commission to fix the responsibility on erring official also directed the commission to examine whether the official entrusted with the duty of regulating and monitoring the SGRY including the Divisional Commissioner, Collector, D.D.C., Sub-Divisional Officer, Block Development Officer as well as persons of Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya are also responsible or not and to record a finding indicating whether while monitoring of scheme they discharge their duty religiously or not? 7. 7. The Writ Court granted liberty to the P.D.S. dealer/writ petitioner and the concerned Government official to file separate application before the enquiry commission and the Writ Court clarified that the interim order passed by the Writ Court shall continue subject to payment of 50% of the liability as per Certificate Officer and till the final litigation by the enquiry commission of the pending 4985 Certificate Proceedings and 689 criminal cases will remain stayed, the Writ Court also granted three months time for deposit of 50% of the certificate amount in three equal instalments. The Writ Court also held out that in the event, the enquiry commission found that the dealers have paid any excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the P.D.S. dealer and in case they have paid less, then the P.D.S. dealer shall deposit the same or the same shall be recovered through pending or fresh Certificate Proceedings. 8. The Writ Court in the totality of the facts situation and considering the hardship of P.D.S. dealer and competing interest of the State evolved, the mechanism of constituting the enquiry commission so that the controversy is set at rest and the litigation in the nature of 4985 certificate proceedings and 689 criminal cases is reduced and settled. 9. Against the elaborate well considered judgment of the Writ Court, the present batch of Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 10. Mr. Sushmita Mishra, appearing on behalf of the appellants assailed the oral judgment on the ground that the Writ Court has failed to consider that the rate of the rice has not been conclusively determined and as such the direction to adjudicate the issue by the enquiry commission is premature. She also submitted that the quantification of Rs.1370 per quintal has no basis and the Writ Court has committed error in allowing the accountability and payment of 50% on the basis of the price of rice at the rate of 1370 per quintal. 11. Mr. She also submitted that the quantification of Rs.1370 per quintal has no basis and the Writ Court has committed error in allowing the accountability and payment of 50% on the basis of the price of rice at the rate of 1370 per quintal. 11. Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh appearing on behalf of some of the appellants submitted that the Writ Court has directed 50% to be paid by the P.D.S. dealer of the entire liability, but notwithstanding the lapse of the officials including the Commissioner, District Magistrate, DDC etc., the writ court has not fixed any accountability for payment on the part of the Government officials, who were responsible in the matter, as due to their lapse and lack of proper regulating and monitoring, the scheme of SGRY, the State suffer loss of Rs. 300 crores and odd as per CAG report. 12. On behalf of State Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General placed on record the order passed in CWJC No. 5638 of 2011, dated 02.08.2017. The said order was passed in view of the communication received on 05.06.2017 from Hon’ble Justice Uday Sinha, a retired Judge of this Court, who was nominated as the Chairman of three member enquiry commission vide order dated 21.09.2015, which is the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeals. 13. The order dated 21.09.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19529 of 2011 and analogous cases, which is also the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeals was modified vide order dated 02.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5638 of 2011. The relevant part of the order dated 02.08.2017 reads as follows: Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the State Government and the communications made in its letter dated 05.06.2017 by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Uday Sinha, it is directed that the order passed on 21.09.2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 19529 of 2011 and analogous cases stands modified to the following extent. (1) The Commission in question shall now consist of only one Member to be headed by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Uday Sinha as its sole member. (2) The Commission shall make endeavour and submit its report within six months from the date as may be modified by the State Government in the Gazette. (1) The Commission in question shall now consist of only one Member to be headed by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Uday Sinha as its sole member. (2) The Commission shall make endeavour and submit its report within six months from the date as may be modified by the State Government in the Gazette. (3) The Commission shall cause an enquiry only with regard to the grievances of such of the persons who has filed the Writ Petitions before this Court pertaining to which orders were passed on 21.09.2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 19529 of 2011 and analogous cases. Scope of the enquiry shall be confined to the adjudication of the dispute raised by the writ petitioners who filed these writ petitions before this Court. (4) The persons or PDS dealers who are not parties in the writ petitions or who had not ventilated their grievances in the writ petitions or before this Court shall not be permitted to take up the issue before the Commission. (5) The Commission shall further ensure that the condition stipulated in the original order passed on 21.09.2015 with regard to the deposit of the 50 per cent of the certificate amount for the purpose of preventing coercive action, shall continue to remain in operation. With the aforesaid modifications in the order dated 21.09.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19529 of 2011 and analogous cases, the Interlocutory Application No. 5268 of 2017 stands allowed and disposed of. 14. Adverting to the submissions of the appellants in the present batch of Letters Patent Appeals, the Court finds that the appellants are beneficiary of the interim order, they availed the said order in terms of the interim order dated 15.10.2014 and under the order of the Writ Court their interest have been protected as 689 criminal cases and 4985 certificate proceedings have been stayed subject to the condition on payment of the 50% of the certificate amount. The beneficial of the interim order cannot enjoy the benefit at the same time question the direction of the Writ Court, even otherwise, the direction of the Writ Court regarding the constitution of the enquiry commission in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is well founded and supported by the reasoning of various cases of the Apex Court and the Division Bench judgment of this Court noted by the Writ Court in para 85 and 86 noted above. The Writ Court has taken note of the interest of the P.D.S. dealer as well as the State Exchequer and has not only protected the interest of the appellants/P.D.S. dealer by staying the Certificate Proceeding and criminal cases, the Writ Court has also clarified that in the event the commission arrived at a finding that the liability of the P.D.S. dealers are less, then the excess amount has to be refunded to the P.D.S. dealer and also directed for fixing accountability of the erring officials responsible for monitoring and regulating the scheme of SGRY. 15. In the totality of the facts and situation we do not find any error in the judgment of the Writ Court. The order dated 02.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5638 of 2011 and analogous cases mentioned above modifying the order dated 21.09.2015 further render the present appeals incompetent. 16. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in the submission of the appellants either on the issue of quantification of price of Rs.1370 per quintals, as the same is based on the objective material including the correspondence of the Food Corporation of India and the report of the CAG. We are also of the view that in the peculiar facts of the case, the approach of the Writ Court is most pragmatic, as the direction of the Writ Court will lead to logical end of the dispute and reduce the litigation, which is pending in the nature of certificate case and criminal case. 17. We see no reason to make any indulgence in these batch of appeals and interfere with the well considered judgment of the Writ Court. 18. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these Letters Patent Appeals and the same is dismissed.