IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2721 of 2010 VIJAY KUMAR ANAND, son of Ram Chandra Panjiyar, resident of Mohalla Rahamganj, PS Lalbagh, Laheria Sarai, District Darbhanga (Respondent in LPA)…Petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through its Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Department of Railway, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. Zonal Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur District Vaishali, Bihar 3. Sr. Divisional Rail Manager (Commercial), East Central Railway, Samastipur 4. Divisional Rail Manager (Commercial), East Central Railway, Samastipur 5. Assistant Commercial Manager, DRM Office, East Central Railway, Samastipur 6. Station Superintendent (Rail) Darbhanga under DRM, Samastipur……..(Appellant in LPA) 7. Ram Babu Choudhary son of not known, resident of Mohalla Donar Station Road, PO Lalbagh, PS Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga ……..(Respondent in LPA)- Opp. Parties With MJC No.2722 of 2010 UMESH KUMAR PASWAN Versus THE UNION OF INDIA through its Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Department of Railway, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others 03- 5/8/2010 Heard Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali for the petitioners, and Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal for the respondents. Both the applications arise out of LPA No.765 of 2009. The petitioners seek a direction for refund of the sums of Rs.7 lacs and 8 lacs, deposited by these petitioners on the direction of the Division Bench disposing of LPA No.765 of 2009 with analogous 2 appeals, by a common judgment dated 7.1.2010, and are lying in deposit with the High Court. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. By order dated 7.1.2010, passed in LPA Nos. 784 of 2009, and 789 of 2009, the Division Bench directed the present petitioners, who were respondents in the appeals, to deposit the sum of Rs.7 lacs and 8 lacs, in the Patna High Court. By the said order dated 7.1.2010, the appeals were disposed of. The present petitioners, therefore, pray that the amounts may be refunded because they have deposited the entire consideration money as per the contracts awarded to them. The said amounts deposited in the High Court are in excess of the consideration money. Learned counsel for the Railways on instruction submits that they have no objection if the said deposits are refunded. 3. In that view of the matter, let the High Court office refund the amounts of Rs.7 lacs and 8 lacs to the petitioners as per the established procedure. 3 4. Both the MJC applications are accordingly disposed of. ( S K Katriar ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan ) mrl