IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6592 of 2005 M/S ASHIANA TENT HOUSE . Versus THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER,BIH . with CWJC No.6946 of 2005 M/S VICKY TENT HOUSE . Versus THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER,BIH . ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate. For Election Commission : Mr. J.P.Karn, Sr. Advocate. ---------- 4/ 30-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for both the parties. In both the writ applications there are disputed facts which have emerged in the counter affidavit as well as in the so-called rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners. If previous amount already paid to the petitioners is not acceptable, there will be no direction for payment of the actual claim of the petitioners to the extent which they are claiming in the present writ applications. The petitioners, if so like, may file a suit for recovery of the amount if law so permits and which shall be decided on the basis of the evidence which will be led in the matter. Both these writ applications are accordingly, disposed of. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J ) BTiwary/