AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing of the order dated 31.10.2001 as contained in Annexure 13 to the writ application, whereby the Chief General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad Informed the petitioner that since he failed to book 1,26,167 MT of slurry out of the allotted quantity of 1,96.667 MT and therefore, under the penalty Clause 8 of the tender the security deposit of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 7,44,385.30 paise for unbooked quantity of slurry was forfeited and further that the petitioner was found to be entitled for refund of the amount of Rs. 3,95,614.70 paise plus the value of the balance quantity of slurry, if any, after surrendering the original sale order. Further, prayer of the petitioner is for direction to the respondents to refund the entire amount deposited by him to the tune of Rs. 11,40,000.00 (Eleven lakhs forty thousand). From the order as contained in Annexure 12 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 290 of 2001 dated 10.8.2001 it appears that with regard to the matter connected with the relief claimed, a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 29 of 2000, filed by the petitioner was pending in the Court of Munsif, Dhanbad. The aforesaid Civil Revision No. 290/2001 was filed by the B.C.C.L. against the order of the Munsif, Dhanbad in the aforesaid title suit. It appears that in course of argument of the Civil Revision Application before this Court, the learned counsel for M/s. Jai Laxmi Fuels (P) Ltd., i. e., the opposite -party the revision application and the present writ petitioner, made statement in the Court that his client is not interested any more in operating the contract in the sense that he does not want to slurry to be lifted any more and that he wants the arrangement to come an end and he only prayed that the security money lying with the petitioner may be ordered to be refunded to the opposite -party.
(3.) IN view of the above statement made by the learned counsel, this Court dismissed the Revision Application to be infructuous with certain directions which are reproduced hereinbelow : 'This Revision Petition is dismissed as having been infructuous. Petitioner No. 2 is hereby directed to consider the issue relating to the refund of the amount of security, deposited with the petitioners, in favour of the opposite -party. Upon this consideration, he shall pass a specific order with regard to the opposite -party 'sentitlement to this amount. This order shall be passed by the petitioner No. 2 within a period of three weeks from today, with or without the opposite -party making any representation for the purpose. If the opposite -party is held entitled to the refund of the entire amount of the security deposit made by it with the petitioners, there is no need to pass a speaking and reasoned order. However, if the petitioners feel that the opposite -party is either not entitled at all, or is entitled to less than the amount deposited by it, they shall pass a reasoned and speaking order. In any event, the amount to which the opposite -party is held entitled to, if at all, shall be refunded to the opposite -party within a period of one week from the date of the passing of the aforesaid order." ;