PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) All the writ petitions were heard analogously as the same have been filed on similar facts and identical grounds. It appears that the disputes raised in the aforesaid writ petitions have been largely resolved except that certain questions remain to be decided in view of the interim order granted earlier by this court on the applications filed in connection with the aforesaid writ petitions.
(2.) After issuance of the interim order by this court on the writ petitions, the respondent no. 1 issued a letter dated 6th July, 2004 to each one of the writ petitioners demanding carrying cost as per Clause 5.0 of the Sale Contracts. The respondents demanded the payment of carrying charges at the rate of Rs. 25/- per quintal per month. The text of the said letter dated 6th July, 2004 issued by the Marketing Manager of the Jute Corporation of India Limited is quoted here under : JUDGEMENT_767_CALWN110_2006Html1.htm Challenging the said direction of the respondent Jute Corporation of India limited, the writ petitioners filed further application in connection with each of the aforesaid writ petitions and prayed for an interim order in the said application restraining the respondents from demanding and/or realising any carrying cost from the petitioners in terms of the said letter dated 6th July, 2004. All the aforesaid applications filed in connection with the aforesaid writ petitions were ultimately disposed of by Pinaki Chandra. Ghose, J. when His Lordship specifically passed an order on 19/7/2004 to the following effect: "In so far as the imposition of carrying cost by the respondent Corporation on the petitioners is concerned, at this stage, it would be proper for me to direct the petitioners to keep the same in a separate account in respect of carrying cost only with the advocate-on-Record until the writ petition is being disposed of and the Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner shall keep the same in a separate fixed deposit account with an nationalised bank and shall keep on renewing the same and intimation to that effect be give both to the Advocate-on-Record of the Jute Corporation of India and the Union of. India. I make it clear that the petitioners shall first deposit the said amount and then and then only the goods will be delivered to them."
(3.) The writ petitioners thereafter lifted the arrear quantity of raw jute supplied to them in six istalments upon depositing the carrying cast with their Advocate-on-record in compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court. Subsequently further applications were filed by the respondent Jute Corporation of India in connection with all the aforesaid writ petitions for modification of the earlier order dated 19th July, 2004 passed by this court. In the said applications respondent Jute Cot potation of India prayed for a specific direction upon the Advocate-on-record of the writ petitioners to withdraw the money deposited earlier on account of carrying cost from the respective Fixed Deposit Account and to hand over the same along with accrued interest to the respondent Jute Corporation of India. The aforesaid applciations were also taken up for hearing along with the main writ petitions.;