BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the respondents in a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order dated 25th January, 2006, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship passed an interim order of injunction restraining the present appellants from recovering any sum out of the outstanding dues of the writ petitioner except that they would be entitled to keep in a separate account a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the credit of the suit filed by them.
(2.) In the writ application, the respondent No. 1 prayed for the following relief: "a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their subordinates and/or their agents to act and proceed strictly in accordance with law and forbear themselves from giving any effect and/or further effect of the impugned decision as communicated by the letter dated 21-6-2006 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Forest) for and on" behalf of the respondent no. 1 and as affirmed by the letter dated 8-11-2005, and directing the said respondents to rescind, recall, cancel and/ or withdraw the said letter dated 21-6-2005 and consequently directing the respondent authorities to release all the payments against the supply of bamboo under the purchase order dated 26-8-2005 and other dues to the petitioner forthwith; b) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to impose any liability whatsoever upon the petitioner on the ground of Risk Purchase for the balance quantity under the Work Order dated 1-6-2004; c) A Writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondent authorities from proceeding against the petitioner for penalizing them on the ground of their failure to supply the full ordered quantity under the Work Order dated 1-6-2004; d) A writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and transmit the records pertaining to this case, so that conscionable justice may be rendered by passing orders in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) and also by setting aside the quashing the impugned notice dated 21-6-2005 and the letter dated 8-11-2005 issued by the in-charge (Commercial), HPCL; e) Rule NISI be issued in terms of prayer (a), (b), (c) and (d) above; f) Interim Order staying the operation of the impugned notice dated 21-6-2005 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Forest), HPCL and directing the respondent HPCL to make payment of the dues of the petitioner against the supply made under the Purchase Order dated 26-8-2005 on such terms and conditions as may be deem fit and proper without prejudice to the rights and contention of the respective parties; g) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (f) above; h) Any of the Writ or Writs, Order or Orders and/or direction or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; i) Costs of and incidental in this application and your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray;"
(3.) The case made out by the writ petitioner was that although undisputedly a specific amount of Rs. 18,83,000/- was due and payable to the writ petitioner by the appellant for supply of various goods, the appellant has taken decision to adjust an amount of Rs. 17,21,945/- allegedly payable as liquidated damages for non-supply of goods by the writ petitioner to the appellant in respect of another transaction and according to the writ petitioner, the appellant being a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India could not deprive the writ petitioner of the legal dues on the alleged plea of adjustment of Rs. 17,21,945/-.;