M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for parties.
(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27th September, 2001, whereby respondent No. 5, namely, Senior Executive (Marketing) Steel Authority of India, Bokaro Steel Plant has cancelled the order for further lifting of balance quantity of coil ends scrap from SPMI. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. Respondent Bokaro Steel Plant advertised for sale of scraps either by auction or on fixed price. List of the items of scrap for sale was also issued. Petitioner offered to purchase 50,000 MT of scraps and after his offer was accepted, the required amount was deposited by the petitioner. Consequently sale order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 5.6.2002. It is stated that petitioner lifted total quantity of 17.680 MTs of scraps. In the meantime, the impugned order of cancellation was issued. Respondents case on the other hand is that petitioner was stopped from lifting balance quantity of materials in view of the adverse vigilance report which states that there is a case pending before the CBI Court being RC case No. 5 (S) of 1994 against the proprietor of the firm. It is further stated that as the petitioner was stopped from lifting the balance materials, he applied before the concerned respondent and claimed for refund of the amount which is the value of the balance quantity of the materials. Respondents accordingly refunded the amount by sending a cheque dated 12.9.2002 for Rs. 4,13,553/ -vide speed post on 14.9.2002.
(3.) IN reply to the said averments, it is stated by the petitioner in rejoinder that he did not make any demand for refund of the money. When the employee of the petitioners firm went to collect the materials, he was asked to sign a printed form and the said employee put his signature without understanding the contents of the format.;