- (1.) I.A. No. 4 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners praying for modification of the order dated 31.8.2007 as well as for disposal of the writ application in the light of the orders passed by this Court.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner explains that LA. No. 931 of 2007 was disposed of by this Court with the observation that "orders and directions passed by the Supreme Court shall also govern this case on the basis of the submission made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Coal Companies has submitted before the Hon ble Supreme Court that the amount paid in excess of the notified prices shall be refunded to them upon verification of the documents which may be submitted on their behalf. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner therefore prays for modification in the order dated 31.8.2007 and to direct the respondents to release the entire amount paid by the petitioner over and above the notified price in between January 2005 till October 2007 along with 12% interest. Shri A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the order of the Supreme Court referred to by the petitioner in the present interlocutory application, is exhaustive and self-explanatory and since by the earlier order passed by this Court, specific observation was recorded that the direction passed by the Supreme Court shall also govern this case, there appears no need for any modification in the order as sought for by the petitioner or for any further orders in terms of the petitioner s prayer.
(3.) From the records, it appears that the present writ application was filed originally challenging E-aution proposed to be conducted by the respondent BCCL in respect of linked quantity of coal with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to release the price determined during E-auction of the linked quantity of coal in the light of the orders passed in CWJC No. 2750 of 1997 (R) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6317 of 1998.;