D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuing a direction to the respondents to refund the reserve jama (security deposit) of Rs. 6,22,000/ - which was deposited by the petitioner with the respondents for obtaining licence for ferrying ghats.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner explains that the amount was deposited in terms of the original understanding with the concerned authorities of the Department that licence for ferrying ghats would be given to the present petitioner. Subsequently, two rival societies also staked their claim and applied for licence for ferrying glials. The dispute was referred to the Registrar. Co -operative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi by the order of this Court passed in earlier writ application filed by the petitioner. The Registrar directed the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to resolve the dispute between the parties with certain guidelines. As per guidelines, it was decided that ghats should be equally distributed amongst the rival claimants namely the present petitioner and another co -operative society and total amount of security deposit of Rs. 14.60,000/ - was divided proportionately amongst both the claimants and the amount which the petitioner was liable to deposit, was Rs. 6,22,000/ - Learned Counsel explains that a fresh auction notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner declaring that licence to ferry ghats which was originally made for a period of one year i.e. from 1st April. 2002 to March, 2003, would be available for the remaining period of the financial year and would be effective from the date of issuance of parwana/per -mission for ferrying ghats. Learned Counsel explains further that the petitioner was not willing to accept the offer for ferrying ghats for the limited period and though he had initially participated in the auction bid, but he had backed out from the same on the ground that he is no more willing to continue with ferrying of ghats for a limited period only since he was not granted privilege of ferrying ghats for the entire financial year, although security money for the entire financial year was deposited.
(3.) THE petitioner thereafter demanded refund of his security deposit of Rs. 6,22,000/ - but the same was refused and thereafter, petitioner moved this Court by filing writ application vide WP (C) No. 5380 of 2002. By disposing of the writ application by order dated 23.11.2002, a direction was given to the respondent Deputy Commissioner to consider the representation of the petitioner for refund of the amount since the petitioner was not willing to enter into an agreement for ferrying ghats for the limited period and to pass appropriate order upon petitioner's claim for refund, if the same is permissible.;