JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to take legal action against the Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat alleging that he is involved in black marketing of food grains in connivance with PDS dealers. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was running a PDS shop at Sidwak Panchayat having licence no. 05/85 since 1985 which was later on transferred to Deodanr Panchayat with effect from 08.11.2019. He further submits that there is a scheme of doorstep delivery of food grains under PDS to each and every beneficiary belonging to primitive tribes and the Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat is responsible for ensuring doorstep delivery of food grains. The said officer withdrew food grains and showed the same allotted to Sonwa Dehri and Most. Folya Dehri – the tribals of Poraiyahat, who had already died. The petitioner represented the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Godda on 29.05.2020 and the respondent no. 3 – the District Supply Officer, Godda on 03.12.2020 against such irregularity committed by the Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat. The petitioner also represented various authorities of the State of Jharkhand on the said issue, however, no action was taken by them. It is also submitted that licences of two PDS Dealers of Deodanr Panchayat were suspended in June, 2019 alleging that they did not distribute 160 quintals of rice to the beneficiaries, but neither any account was maintained for the said black marketed rice nor FIR was lodged for the same. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent no. 3 after receiving the petitioner’s application dated 03.12.2020, asked explanation on the same day from the Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat regarding all the said issues mentioned in the application. The respondent no. 3 also issued show cause notice to the Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat on 04.12.2020 followed by reminder on 07.04.2021, whereupon the said officer submitted his reply on 08.04.2021 stating that due to mistake and lack of knowledge about the death of Sonwa Dehri and Most. Folya Dehri of Sidwak Panchayat, the food grains for the month of January, 2019 and February, 2019 were distributed to brother of Sonwa Dehri and daughter-in-law of Most. Folya Dehri by taking their thumb impression on proper identification in presence of Up-Mukhiya of the said Panchayat after maintaining register for such distribution. Folya Dehri of Sidwak Panchayat, the food grains for the month of January, 2019 and February, 2019 were distributed to brother of Sonwa Dehri and daughter-in-law of Most. Folya Dehri by taking their thumb impression on proper identification in presence of Up-Mukhiya of the said Panchayat after maintaining register for such distribution. It was further stated by the Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat that EPOS machine was being kept in offline mode for the Pahariya families and later on after distribution of the quantity of food grains, slips were being downloaded from such machine. The said officer accepted the fact that due to mistake of his helper, only printout slips of both the said deceased persons were downloaded from the EPOS machine for the month of March, 2019 to April, 2020 without actual distribution of food grains. He also stated that food grains were neither distributed to said deceased persons nor such fact was maintained in his stock register in their names since March, 2019 to April, 2020 as claimed by the petitioner. Moreover, he maintained store register properly showing total 9.80 quintals of rice available in his godown. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that after receiving the show cause reply from the Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat, the respondent no. 3 is still making enquiry against the alleged irregularities committed by the said officer and hence, the present writ petition is premature. It is further submitted that departmental proceeding/disciplinary action would be initiated by the respondent no. 3 against the said officer after proper enquiry. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the respondent no. 3 has already proceeded with the enquiry in the matter of alleged irregularities committed by the Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat and show cause notice has been issued to him. The Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat has also filed reply to the said show cause notice and the enquiry is still continuing. 5. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the present writ petition is disposed of without commenting on the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the concerned Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat by directing the respondent no. 3 to proceed with the enquiry on the alleged allegation and to take appropriate action in this regard in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.