JUDGMENT : RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. 1. The batch of Letters Patent Appeals have been taken up together for consideration as all these matters relate to identical issues and the parties are at consensus that these Letters Patent Appeals may be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In L.P.A. No.881 of 2016 and L.P.A. No.427 of 2018, the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and its authorities (hereinafter referred to as the "BSFCSC" or the appellants) are seeking the setting aside of the common judgment dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Writ Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12512 of 2015 and C.W.J.C. No.12749 of 2015 respectively. By the impugned judgment, the learned writ Court has upon consideration of the scheme of the Government of India in its Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Department and Food and Civil Supplies for effective disposal of paddy/CMR by the farmers through the Cooperative Societies of which they were members as also in the light of the report received from the District Magistrate with regard to physical stock of the societies came to a conclusion that such societies whose purchases were made on or before 31.03.2015; whose delivery was supported by the Enforcement Certificate issued by the Enforcement Officer and the society concerned had approached this Court before the cut-off date fixed in the scheme i.e. 31.03.2015 are entitled for consideration for the reliefs. The learned Writ Court considered the two writ applications which were clubbed together and the respective reports of the Enforcement Officer in respect of those petitioners and finally directed the State Food Corporation, State and the Union of India to accept the deliveries of CMR and make payment of the price in respect thereof as found admissible. 3. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the issues raised in the two writ applications were subject matters of consideration in various other writ applications heard and disposed off by the learned Writ Court, out of which several Letters Patent Appeals have arisen. In these 25 Letters Patent Appeals we have been called upon to consider the Judgment of the learned Writ Court in all those writ applications which are related to the claims of the respective PACS/Societies/Individual who are seeking a mandamus to the "BSFCSC" to accept their paddy/CMR supplies in terms of the paddy season 2014-15. 4. In these 25 Letters Patent Appeals we have been called upon to consider the Judgment of the learned Writ Court in all those writ applications which are related to the claims of the respective PACS/Societies/Individual who are seeking a mandamus to the "BSFCSC" to accept their paddy/CMR supplies in terms of the paddy season 2014-15. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioners before the learned Writ Court was that the "BSFCSC" had refused to accept the delivery of Paddy purchased by the cooperative societies or the Custom Milled Rice (CMR) derived there from. Considering the kind of the grievance raised before the learned Writ Court, the Court went through the scheme of the Government of India and considering the arguments of the parties thought it just and proper to get conducted a fresh enquiry regarding physical stock of the societies under the supervision of the District Magistrate concerned and the District Magistrate was directed to submit his report on actual physical position of the stock of the cooperative societies operating in the district. On the basis of the report submitted by the District Magistrate the learned Writ Court decided the issues raised in favour of such of the societies whose claims were covered under the following principles:- (a) The purchases were made on or before 31.03.2015; (b) The balance stock of paddy/CMR claimed by the society was supported by the Enforcement Certificate issued by the Enforcement Officer; and (c) The society concerned had approached this Court on or before the cut of date fixed in the scheme i.e. 31.03.2015. 5. The aforesaid principles were earlier followed in CWJC No.10728 of 2015 (Auraiya Primary Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and other analogous cases and as the learned Writ Court found that two writ petitions in L.P.A. No.881 of 2016 and L.P.A. No.427 of 2018 have been filed before cut-off date hence the claim advanced by the societies under these two writ applications being supported by the enforcement certificate issued by the enforcement officer, they are entitled for the benefits similar to those in whose favour the principles abovementioned have been followed. There were 11 writ petitioners in CWJC No.12512 of 2015, learned Writ Court has examined the report of the District Magistrate in respect of each of the 11 petitioners. There were 11 writ petitioners in CWJC No.12512 of 2015, learned Writ Court has examined the report of the District Magistrate in respect of each of the 11 petitioners. As regards the sole petitioner in CWJC No.12749 of 2015 also the learned Writ Court has accepted the physical verification report submitted by the District Magistrate. The learned Writ Court however rejected the claim of petitioner no.3 in CWJC No.12512 of 2015 in so far as it relates to CMR as well as the claim advanced by the petitioner no.6 on the ground of not being supported with the documents. The claim of petitioner no.11 has been modified in terms of the enforcement certificate to 232.8 quintals. Petitioner no.4 has been allowed to raise his claim before the Corporation for payment of the price of 830 quintals of paddy supplied on 27.03.2015 with supporting documents. The claims of petitioner nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 11 as well as the claim of the sole petitioner in the second writ petition in terms of the stock have been allowed and the directions issued as aforesaid. 6. Since the other Letters Patent Appeal arising out of all the impugned judgments passed by the learned Writ Court have also been tagged with the Letters Patent Appeal No.881 of 2016, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2015 passed in CWJC No.10728/2015 and other analogous matters as well. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that while considering the grievance of the writ petitioners the learned Writ Court has completely missed out on the government’s scheme which provides several safeguards to the farmers in the matter of payment of the purchase price of the paddy crops. Referring to the observations of the learned Court present at page 26 of the impugned judgment it is his submission that the learned Writ Court has taken a view that " it is the State in its Food and Consumer Protection Department, the Cooperative Departments, the District Magistrate as the supervisory head of the district and the authorities of the Corporation who had to take sufficient steps to ensure that at least such of the paddy crops which stands supported by the enforcement certificate be delivered either in paddy form or in custom milled rice form. ." 7. ." 7. The learned senior counsel submits that the enforcement certificate is in itself not a conclusive proof of fact that the purchases of paddy crops/CMR have been made by the society from the farmers members for whose benefit the government scheme has been framed. It is submitted that it is a scheme framed by the Government of India and the entire funding is done by the Government of India, the "BSFCSC" is only a nodal agency to implement the scheme of the government and, therefore, the purchases which are inconformity with the government scheme by following procedures laid down in the scheme are only entitled for procurement and payment by the "BSFCSC". 8. In this regard learned senior counsel has drawn our attention towards stipulations present in the government's scheme, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-"Y" to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.9 in CWJC No.10728 of 2015. Referring to Annexure-"Y" learned senior counsel submits that paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the scheme are relevant and worth consideration for purpose of arriving at a just and proper conclusion in these batch of cases. It is his submission that according to scheme (paragraph 9) it has to be ensured that the farmers from whom the purchases have been made have been paid without any delay through RTGS/NEFT/Account Payee Cheque at the purchase centre itself. It is provided that the farmers are to be paid through RTGS/NEFT immediately after the purchase. Regarding purchases through PACS it is provided that the price of the paddy will be proportionate to the CMR received and on the basis of the certificates received from PACS and after verification of the vouchers advise will be sent to the Bank by endorsing "yourself" on the cheques made available by the cooperative banks, the advise shall contain the name of PACS, the quantity of paddy supplied with value thereof and such payments are to be sent to the cooperative bank within a period of seven days. 9. Learned senior counsel submits that the learned writ Court has not considered a very important aspect of the matter i.e. regarding the payments made to the farmers through the cooperative banks being an essential condition to come under the scheme. 9. Learned senior counsel submits that the learned writ Court has not considered a very important aspect of the matter i.e. regarding the payments made to the farmers through the cooperative banks being an essential condition to come under the scheme. It is submitted that the learned Writ Court has relied upon the enforcement certificate alone to take a view that because the enforcement certificate shows procurement of paddy by the PACS, therefore, the nodal agency is liable to accept the same. It is submitted that mere procurement by "PACS" is not enough, the PACS are required to show that they have made payment to the farmers through RTGS/NEFT from the account maintained in the cooperative bank in which "PACS" have been given overdraft facility to facilitate payment to the farmers from whom the purchases have been made. It is submitted that in absence of proof of payment to the farmers within cut-off date i.e. 31.03.2015, any direction to accept the "paddy" or "CMR" would not be just and proper. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned senior counsel representing some of the respondents, Mr. Dinu Kumar and other counsel representing the respondents in the batch of Letters Patent Appeals have submitted before us that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2015 passed in CWJC No.10728 of 2015 and other analogous writ applications which has been reiterated vide impugned judgment dated 18.12.2015 passed in CWJC No.12512 of 2015 and CWJC No.12749 of 2015. Learned counsel representing the various PACS/individuals in other Letters Patent Appeals have also supported the respective impugned judgments on identical pleas. It is submitted that the learned writ Court has taken an equitable view of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case. Referring to the impugned judgment, learned senior counsel submits that the learned writ Court has not allowed all the writ applications and in fact some of the writ applications which were tagged with CWJC No.10728 of 2015 were dismissed when the learned Writ Court found that the report submitted by the District Magistrate could not confirm the physical position of the stock in course of verification. It is submitted that the learned Writ Court has rightly relied upon the certificates issued by the enforcement officer and if the learned Writ Court has given primacy to the enforcement certificates as the basis for accepting the stock position, no wrong has been committed by the learned Writ Court. It is submitted that the learned Writ Court has rightly observed that ".where the Cooperative Societies are largely dependant upon their bank for the payments to the farmers, the issue of payment though is relevant but cannot be an obstacle for the benefit under the policy and the Corporation has unnecessarily raised this bogey to contest the relief. .." 11. At this stage, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned senior counsel has responded to the submission of learned senior counsel representing the respondents, referring to Annexure-"F" to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.9 in CWJC No.10728 of 2015, learned senior counsel points out that the report submitted by the District Magistrate to the "BSFCSC" on which reliance has been placed by the learned Writ Court is not inspiring confidence and cannot be relied upon because of the discrepancies noticed in the report itself. Learned senior counsel submits that at the first instance it has to be kept in mind that under the government's scheme only the procurements made before 31.03.2015 are to be accepted by the nodal agency but the report has been submitted by the District Magistrate after conducting a verification of the stock through officers posted in the different blocks after 22.05.2015, thus what was found in the verification on or after 22.05.2015 cannot be said to be procurement of the paddy season 2014-15 on or before 31.03.2015. He has drawn our attention towards various columns of the reports which show that in one of the columns the stock position of the various PACS is "0.00" and in the remarks column it is vaguely stated that either "CMR" has been prepared from the paddy or that during the verification the "PACS" was found closed. It is submitted that the report nowhere talks of verification with respect to the payments made to the farmers against the purchases made before the cut-off date i.e. 31.03.2015. It is submitted that the report nowhere talks of verification with respect to the payments made to the farmers against the purchases made before the cut-off date i.e. 31.03.2015. In his submission no effort was taken by District Magistrate or the enforcement officer to check whether the mandating condition of payment to farmers immediately or in any case on or before 31.03.2015 has been fulfilled. 12. Having heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, advocate on record on behalf of the BSFCSC/appellants in all these Letters Patent Appeals, Mr. Rajendra Narayan learned senior counsel, Mr. Dinu Kumar learned advocate and other learned advocates on behalf of the respondents, we find that in order to understand the whole grievance of the petitioner as well as the appellants it would be just and proper to quote paragraph 7 to 10 of the government's scheme from Annexure-"Y" to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.9. Since the stipulations present in the government's scheme are guiding factor and nobody has questioned the acceptability of the scheme for the benefit of the farmers, we quote relevant paragraphs as aforesaid hereunder:- ^^7- /kku Ø; dsUnz ij fdlkuksa ls ÁkIr fd;s tkus okys dkxtkr ¼d½ Hkwfe lEcU/kh nLrkost vapy inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr Hkw&LokfeRo Áek.k i=@gky dk eky xqtkjh jlhn@fdlku ØsfMV dkMZ ¼gky dk fuxZr½ buesa ls dksbZ ,dA jktLo jlhn@HkwLokfeRo Áek.k i= dh laHkkfor tkylkth dks jksdus ds fy, Áek.k i= fuxZr djus okys vapykf/kdkjh ,oa jktLo deZpkjh ds gLrk{kj dk uewuk fuxe Ø; dsUnz ,oa iSDl Ø; dsUnz dks miyC/k djk;k tk;sxkA ¼[k½ fdlkuksa dk QksVks;qDr igpku i= ¼ernkrk igpku i=½@iklcqd dh Nk;k Áfr@fdlku ØsfMV dkMZ dh Nk;k Áfr@Mªkbfoax ykbZlsal ,oa Hkkjr fuokZpu vk;ksx }kjk ekU;rk ÁkIr vU; nLrkost buesa ls dksbZ ,dA ¼x½ cVkbZnkjksa ds fy, tehu ekfyd dk mi;qZDr Hkwfe laca/kh nLrkost ,oa QksVks;qDr igpku i=A ¼?k½ [kjhQ foi.ku ekSle 2014&15 vUrxZr lkQ lqFkjs ,oa lw[ks gq, /kku ftldh ueh dh ek=k 17 Áfr'kr ls vf/kd u gks] dh vf/kÁkfIr dh tk;A ¼³½ iSDlksa }kjk Ø; fd;s x;s vf/kÁkfIr /kku@lhŒ,eŒvkjŒ dk gLrkarj.k laca/k fuxe Ø; dsUnz@lhŒ,eŒvkjŒ xksnke ij fofgr Ái= esa fuxZr Áek.k i= ds lkFk fd;k tk;sxkA 8- iSDlksa ls /kku ÁkIr djus gsrq jksLVj dh O;oLFkk fcgkj jkT; [kk| fuxe }kjk iSDlksa ls /kku ysus ds fy, iSDlksa dk jksLVj rS;kj dj fy;k tk; rkfd iSDlksa dks ;g tkudkjh jgs fd fdl frfFk dks mUgsa jkT; [kk| fuxe ds Ø; dsUnzks ij vuko';d :i ls HkhM+ ugha yxs ,oa iSDl lqxerkiwoZd fcuk dfBukbZ ds jkT; [kk| fuxe ds Ø; dsUnz@xksnkeksa ij /kku dh lqiqnZxh dj ldsA 9- Hkqxrku dh O;oLFkk ;g lqfuf'pr djsa fd ljdkj }kjk fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuq:i lHkh fdlkuksa dks Ø; fd;s x;s /kku dk Hkqxrku vfoyEc vkjŒVhŒthŒ,lŒ@usV vFkok ,dkmUV is pSDl ds ek/;e ls lacaf/kr Ø; dsUnz ij dj fn;k tk;A bl O;oLFkk dks lqfuf'pr djus gsrq fuEukafdr dkjZokbZ dh tk;s %& ¼d½ jkT; [kk| fuxe ds ÁR;sd Ø; dsUnz ij vkjŒVhŒthŒ,lŒ@usV vFkok ,dkmUV is pSDl ds ek/;e ls djus gsrq Ákf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh dk miyC/k gksukA ¼[k½ jkT; [kk| fuxe }kjk bl laca/k esa ftys ;k Á[k.M Lrj ij vf/kÁkfIr dk;Z gsrq cSad ,dkmUV [kksyuk ,oa ÁR;sd Ø; dsUnz ij vkjŒVhŒthŒ,lŒ@usV vFkok ,dkmUV is pSDl ds ek/;e ls djus gsrq Ákf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh dk miyC/k gksukA ¼x½ ÁR;sd cSad ,dkmUV esa fu/kkZfjr ekinaM ds vuq:i i;kZIr jkf'k miyC/k gksukA ¼?k½ jkT; [kk| fuxe }kjk ÁR;sd ftyk esa dkWijsfVo cSad esa iSDl }kjk Ø; fd;s x;s /kku dk Hkqxrku ,deq'r ,MokbZl ,oa vkjŒVhŒthŒ,lŒ@usV vFkok ,dkmUV is pSDl ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA ¼³½ iSDl }kjk Ø; fd;s x;s /kku dk Hkqxrku vkjŒVhŒthŒ,lŒ@usV ds ek/;e ls fdlkuksa dks Ø; ds rqjUr ckn fd;k tkukA ¼p½ iSDl ls Ø; fd;s x;s /kku dk ewY; lekuqikfrd lhŒ,eŒvkjŒ ÁkfIr ds vk/kkj ij iSDl ls ÁkIr Áek.k i= ,oa foi=ksa dh tkap dj dsUnzh; lgdkfjrk cSad@jkT; lgdkjh cSad }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s pSd ij Loa;a vafdr djrs gq, cSad ,MokbZl ftlesa iSDlksa dk uke] vkiwfrZ fd;s x;s /kku dh ek=k ,oa ewY; vafdr gks] ds lkFk vfuok;Z :i ls lkr fnuksa ds vUnj lgdkfjrk cSad dks Hkstuk rFkk Hkqxrku lqfuf'pr djukA ¼N½ iSDl ,oa fu;e ds Ø; dsUnz ij Áfrfu;qDr inkf/kdkjh@dehZ fdlku dks Hkqxrku vkjŒVhŒthŒ,lŒ@usV vFkok ,dkmUV is pSDl ds ek/;e ls djsxhA 10- ftyk Lrj ij Áca/ku@vuqJo.k@i;Zos{k.k ,oa fujh{k.k dh O;oLFkk ftyk Lrj ij Áca/ku@ vuqJo.k@i;Zos{k.k ,oa fujh{k.k gsrq fuEukafdr dkjZokbZ dh tk; %& ¼d½ ftyk Lrj ij /kku@pkoy vf/kÁkfIr dk;Z dh vuqJo.k@i;Zos{k.k ,oa fujh{k.k gsrq vij lekgrkZ Lrj ds inkkf/kdkjh dh iw.kZdkfyd Áfrfu;qfDr dh tk;A ¼[k½ vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd os Áfrfnu vius vuqe.My vUrxZr /kku vf/kÁkfIr dh iw.kZ leh{kk dj Áfrosnu dks ftyk inkf/kdkjh dks HkstsaxsA ¼x½ ÁR;sd Á[k.M esa vf/kÁkfIr dk;Z ds fu;fer vuqJo.k@i;Zos{k.k ,oa fujh{k.k gsrq ftyk ls ,d ojh; mi lekgrkZ dh Áfrfu;qfDr dh tk;A ¼?k½ Á[k.M ojh; mi lekgrkZ@ftyk inkf/kdkjh }kjk Áfrfu;qDr l{ke inkkf/kdkjh dks vko';drkuqlkj buQksjlesaV lfVZfQdsV nsus gsrq Ákf/kd`r fd;k tk;A** 13. On going through the scheme, we find that in the paddy procurement year 2014-15, in order to ensure that the purchases are made only from farmers and not from the traders and intermediaries, the government made an arrangement for decentralized purchasing where under "BSFCSC" was made a nodal agency for purchases through PACS, "Byapar Mandal" and "purchase centers" of the BSFCSC. The scheme also provided for preparation of CMR through the mills operated by PACS and under an agreement to be executed between the BSFCSC and the mill run by the PACS. The whole purpose of the scheme was to ensure benefit to the farmers and nobody else. According to scheme against the purchases made from the farmers the PACS and the purchase centers of the BSFCSC had to make payment through RTGS/NEFT or account payee cheque immediately after purchase. By virtue of paragraph "9" of the scheme immediately after purchases from the farmers, the PACS is liable to pay the price of the paddy to the farmers through RTGS/NEFT. In turn, the PACS were to get payment on the basis of the proportionate CMR of the purchased paddy on receipt of the certifications and vouchers. Paragraph 9 clearly provides that PACS shall pay to the farmers through RTGS/NEFT or account payee cheque. The learned Writ Court in its order dated 12.10.2015 passed in CWJC No.10728 of 2015 has though found this to be a relevant aspect of the matter but then proceeded to dislodge the objection taken by the "BSFCSC" on the ground that where the co-operative societies are largely dependant upon their bank for the payment of farmers, the issue of payment though is relevant but cannot be an obstacle for the benefit under the policy. It seems to us that on the face of the availability of the enforcement certificate and report from the District Magistrate the learned Writ Court was of the view that no other objection could have been taken. With great respect to the learned Writ Court we would differ here. We find that the learned Writ Court has erred in not appreciating that the scheme is for the benefit of the farmers alone and not for the traders or PACS and where the PACS are not able to show that the price of procured paddy has been really paid to the farmers members they cannot claim the benefit for themselves. We find that the learned Writ Court has erred in not appreciating that the scheme is for the benefit of the farmers alone and not for the traders or PACS and where the PACS are not able to show that the price of procured paddy has been really paid to the farmers members they cannot claim the benefit for themselves. It is not the case of these societies that because of failure of the banks to pay/transfer the amount to the farmers, the payments could not be made, therefore the dependency of the PACS on the Banks is not an issue and could not have been taken as a reason to ignore the plea of the "BSFCSC" that payment to farmers is an important factor to be taken care of. 14. In our considered opinion, the learned writ Court has missed out on an important aspect of the matter i.e. the payments made to the farmers members against the purchases on or before 31.03.2015 which is a condition which must be shown to have been followed by PACS in order to make them eligible to supply paddy/CMR to the BSFCSC. 15. We find that in course of hearing of these Letters Patent Appeals a learned coordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to pass an order dated 11.09.2017 in the following terms:- "This Court had given opportunity to different appellants especially relating to PACS who claim that against bonafide procurement they have already made payments to the farmers and money has been duly credited and accounted for. In support thereof, certain documents, which includes extracts of pass books or statement of accounts, have been annexed in the affidavits which have been filed in the Letters Patent Appeals and duly served on the counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. The authenticity of such transactions cannot be verified by us. The certification thereof can only emerge from the branches and the banks where the transactions have taken place. On 17.08.2017 the matter was adjourned giving time to the counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation to verify the documents and get the necessary inputs. Both because of the floods and because of lack of cooperation the exercise has not been completed. On 17.08.2017 the matter was adjourned giving time to the counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation to verify the documents and get the necessary inputs. Both because of the floods and because of lack of cooperation the exercise has not been completed. The senior counsel representing the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation seeks a direction from the Court upon one and all including the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the respective Managing Director, Cooperative Banks, that they all have the obligation created under the directions of this Court to help in providing the necessary verification and inputs whenever sought so that the Court can decide and proceed with the matter based on the authenticity of those transactions and the documents which have been used showing the transactions. The Court directs all the authorities mentioned above to provide due support. Any impediment created by any of the authorities in compliance of the order would be viewed very deemly. Let the matter now come up on 14th November, 2017. The PACS managers will have opportunity to redeem themselves by showing their honesty in assistance as well as the authorities of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation are also directed to complete the exercise by the next date as enough time and indulgence has been granted to them taking overall situation into consideration." 16. After the aforesaid order was passed a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent 1st set in LPA No.881 of 2016 enclosing more than 700 pages of various documents to show that the respective PACS have purchased the paddy for the season 2014-15 from the farmer members and amount has been paid to them using cash credit facility to respective PACS through cooperative societies and some amount are still due and after receiving the payment the same will be paid. The supplementary counter affidavit thus clearly shows that regarding some of the purchases while some of the PACS are claiming that they have made payments, admittedly some of the purchases which they are claiming against them payments have not yet been made to the farmers. The supplementary counter affidavit thus clearly shows that regarding some of the purchases while some of the PACS are claiming that they have made payments, admittedly some of the purchases which they are claiming against them payments have not yet been made to the farmers. If the payments have not been made to the farmers, in our considered opinion, such purchases which are being claimed to have been made during the season 2014-15 shall not qualify for supplies to the "BSFCSC" in terms of the government's scheme and the "PACS" cannot compel the "BSFCSC" being nodal agency to accept the supplies against which the "PACS" have not made payment to the farmers on or before the cut-off date. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Court is required to balance the interest of both the parties keeping in mind the aim and object of the government's scheme and the purpose of the scheme is that the benefit of scheme should go only to the farmers and not to any trader or intermediaries. We would respectfully differ with the view of the learned Writ Court only to the extent that the payments made to the farmers on or before 31.03.2015, in our opinion, has to be taken as an important consideration and a factor to be taken care of in order to reach to a conclusion whether or not the PACS in respect of whom the learned writ Court has found a case in their favour, are entitled to the benefit of the same. In order to ensure the achievement of the aims and objects of the government's scheme we would direct that a committee comprising (i) the District Magistrate of the concerned district, (ii) the Enforcement Officer of the concerned Block within whose jurisdiction the PACS is situated and (iii) one senior officer from the BSFCSC would nominated by the Managing Director of the BSFCSC, shall with the assistance of the concerned bank manager and officer of the cooperative banks shall find out such purchases which have been made by the respective PACKS in whose favour the learned Writ Court has found a case and against which payments have been made to the farmer members of the PACKS either by RTGS/NEFT or through account payee cheque on or before 31.03.2015. All such claims of procurement of paddy which will be supported by the payments made to the farmer members of the PACKS in the manner stated in the government's scheme shall only qualify for supply of proportionate "CMR" to the "BSFCSC". Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned senior counsel has contended before us that so far as BSFCSC is concerned, it is only a nodal agency and the entire fund with regard to such procurements through the PACS are to be made available by the Central Government. 18. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Central Government has a submission that the scheme was meant for the year 2014-15 and after the scheme has lived its life and thereafter purchases are being made in different years, it would not be proper to issue any mandamus at this stage. 19. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and find that only those writ applications have been allowed by the learned Writ Court in which the petitioners had moved the Court before the end of the procurement year or had claimed that the purchases of paddy were made before the end of the scheme on 31.03.2015. Since these writ applications pertain to the paddy season 2014-15 only in respect of which the government scheme was in operation, if the petitioners would be able to make out their case in terms of our directions hereinabove, in our considered opinion, they cannot be deprived from supplying the proportionate CMR, as the case may be, in terms of the scheme. If these "PACS" have made payments to the farmer members on or before 31.03.2015, the nodal agency as well as the Central Government are liable to abide by the promises made under the scheme. 20. The Committee aforesaid shall complete the entire exercise of verification within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the supplies which would qualify for payments will be made available to them within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of recommendation of the Committee. The respective Co-operative Banks shall co-operate with the Committee and shall make available the necessary records of payment to farmers and other information which may be sought by the Committee. The Committee shall give reasons for rejection of claims of a PACS. The respective Co-operative Banks shall co-operate with the Committee and shall make available the necessary records of payment to farmers and other information which may be sought by the Committee. The Committee shall give reasons for rejection of claims of a PACS. It is made clear that any party, who may be aggrieved by the recommendation of the Committee, will be at liberty to raise a grievance and seek his/their remedy in accordance with law. 21. All these Letters Patent Appeals stand disposed of with the modifications of the impugned judgment in the aforementioned terms.