ARIJIT BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition pertains to e -auction. The petitioner was successful in the auction and took delivery of the goods upon making payment. About eighteen months later a supplementary bill was raised by the respondents on the petitioner for an amount of Rs.29,94,906.38/ -. The petitioner disputes this bill. In accordance with the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties the petitioner requested the respondent no.2 for appointment of an Arbitrator but the same was not done, on grounds which were found to be unmaintainable by this Court in WP No.1207(W) of 2014 which the petitioner was compelled to file since the respondent no.2 refused to appoint an Arbitrator. By an order dated 16th May, 2014 this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the following directions: " i) the order impugned dated 10th February, 2014 is set aside; ii) the Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited shall appoint an arbitrator within seven days from date; iii) the arbitrator so appointed shall inform the parties of his appointment within three days thereof, whereafter the parties shall be entitled to file pleadings and lead evidence in respect of the respective claims; and iv) the arbitrator shall ensure that the proceedings are concluded as early as possible after entering reference."
(2.) THE supplementary bill that has been raised by the respondent no.2 is on account of alleged excess supply of coal to the petitioner. The alleged excess amount was detected upon re -weighment of a rake. Clauses 7.4 and 7.8 of the terms and conditions of Spot e -auction Scheme, 2007 provide as follows: "7.4 The quantity allotted against each rake is indicative quantity only and delivery shall be made on the basis of actual weighment by the Seller at the loading end. 7.8 The weighment at the loading and shall be final and binding for all commercial purposes." It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that weighment at the loading end was done in presence of the respondent no.2, railway authorities and the representatives of the petitioner, and hence the same is binding for all commercial purposes. There was no scope for raising any supplementary bill. The supplementary bill is completely meritless. It is stated that an amount of Rs.15,64,802.19/ - belonging to the petitioner is lying with the respondent no.2. The petitioner apprehends that the respondent no.2 will adjust such amount of money against the alleged claim of the respondent no.2. It is stated on behalf of the respondent no.2 that such amount of money has already been adjusted.
(3.) THE petitioner seems to have made out a prima facie case. Accordingly, I direct the respondent no.2 not to adjust the said amount of Rs.15,64,802.19/ - against any alleged claim of the respondent no.2, if such adjustment has already not been done.;