JUDGMENT : PARTHA SARTHY, J. 1. No one appears for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.10.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5130 of 2019. 3. The writ petitioner-appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 5130 of 2019 praying for quashing the order contained in letter no. 23 dated 4.1.2019 issued under the signature of the Block Development Officer, Shekhopursarai whereby the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 31,51,479.50 in lieu of the food grains allotted to him under the Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana (‘the scheme’ in short) within one week, failing which a certificate case will be lodged against him and for other reliefs. 4. Having perused the material on record, it transpires that the relevant facts are that the appellant is a licensee under the Public Distribution System (PDS) since the year 1985. Under the Scheme, foodgrains were supplied to the PDS dealers on the basis of the permit issued. The appellant is said to have supplied foodgrains on the basis of permit issued by the concerned Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad. 5. It is the case of the appellant that foodgrains were supplied to the extent of permit. Subsequently on permit not being issued, the storage of the foodgrains/rice which was a perishable item became difficult. Inspite of his representation before the District Magistrate, no decision was taken nor any guidelines provided. It further transpires from the material on record that the petitioner moved this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 11319 of 2011 which along with 26 other writ applications were disposed of by a common order dated 25.7.2011 in terms of order dated 26.7.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 and C.W.J.C. No. 757 of 2011. Relevant part of the order dated 6.7.2011 disposing of C.W.J.C. No. 711 of 2011 and C.W.J.C. No. 757 of 2011 is quoted herein-below for ready reference: “As the facts of these cases are similar, I do propose to pass order in the aforesaid term. The impugned demand as contained in Annexure-1 to these writ petitions would be treated as a show cause notice. The impugned demand as contained in Annexure-1 to these writ petitions would be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioners would file their reply before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer or the officer issuing the demand memo along with a copy of this order within six weeks from today, who in turn would consider the submissions of the petitioners and pass final order within three months thereof. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioners. In case no representation is filed by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer or the officer concerned within six weeks from today, the latter would be at liberty to pass appropriate order. In such cases the interim order would be limited to six weeks from today. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ applications are disposed of.” 6. The scheme which was started in March 2002 was closed down by the government after four years. However, it transpired that rice had been issued to several PDS dealers even after closure of the scheme. On a report being sent by the Accountant General’s Office with respect to improper utilization of rice, action was taken by the government for realization of the price of the residual rice. This led to constitution of an inquiry commission headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha, a retired judge of this Court who submitted his final inquiry report on 6.6.2018. 7. As per the final report of the inquiry commission, portion of which is quoted in the order by the learned Single Judge, the dealers were trustees of the grains and they were liable to defray the value of the entrusted grains which had not been distributed by them. Taking the above facts into consideration, learned single Judge in his order was of the opinion that the inquiry commission had come to the conclusion that all the PDS dealers were liable to pay the amount for the undistributed portion of the foodgrains. The appellant could not avoid his liability to pay. Being aware of the constitution of the inquiry commission, the appellant was fully aware of his liability and had got an interim protection. The appellant could not avoid his liability to pay. Being aware of the constitution of the inquiry commission, the appellant was fully aware of his liability and had got an interim protection. Thus, the learned single Judge was of the opinion that on the final report of the inquiry commission having now come, according to which all the PDS dealers were liable to pay the amount for the undistributed portion of the foodgrains, the appellant could not avoid his liability to pay. 8. Thus, the Court does not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed.