PETFHONERS RESPONDENTS \l a HIGH SQURT OF CHHATTIS$ARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlQN NQ‘ 3771 OF 23Q5 Mira Tripti lnd:.:stries, BhamwanL Deoriya, Tahsil and Di5tt. Deoriya (UP), through its proprietor Amit Pandey, aged about 25 year3, SIG Shri Dinesh Pandey, Rio Bhaiuwani. Deoriya, Tahsil Distt. Deoriya (UP) Mls Aman lndrmtries, Sonughat, Deeriya, Tahsil and Gistt. {Jeoriya (UP), through its proprietor Am! Giri, aged about 36 years, Sic Shri Mandeo Siri, Rio Sonughgt, Deoriya. Tahsii & Distt, Deoriva (UP). M/s Adhunika mdustriea Bhahxwani, Deoriya, Tahsil and Diott. Deoriya (UP), through its} Proprietor Vinod Pandey, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri N.K. Pandey, Rio Bhaiuwani, Deoriya, Tahsii & Distt. Deoriya (UP). M/s Shanti Traders, sarangpur, Bahatiya, Aliahabad, Tahsil and Distt. Aliahabad (UP), through ito Proprietor Shiv Ji Pandey, aged about 27 years, S/o Shri Kishan Pandey, Rio Sarangpur, Post Bahariya, Tahsii & Distt Ailahabad (UP). Versus Union of India, through the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Coat and Mining, shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. Coat india Limitad, through its Chairman, Netaji Suhhash Chahdra Bose Road, Calcutta. south Eastern Coat Fieid Limited, through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, SECL, Sipat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). The Chief Generai Manager (S&M), SECL, $ipat Road, Biiaspur, District Biiaspur CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of inclia) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Setish K. Agnihotri, J, Present :- Shri Sunii Sahu counsei for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri SK. I Beriwatetanding counsel for Union of indie/respondent No.1. Shri RS. Koshy. counsel for the respondents No.2. 3 & 4. 1_ m & ( ORAL QRDER (Passed an this 22na day sf Ocb'aer, 25:03) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner$ submim that in the light 0f decision of the Hon'bla supreme Cour? in the matter nf Azthaka smokeless Coal India P) Ltd. and athers vs. Unian of lndia and others‘, wherein the Supreme Court granted librty to evolve a policy which would meet the requirements of public interest vis—a-vis the interest 0f cansumers of coal, the ptitioners seek permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to make n application fer refund of the excess payment, if any. 2) Sh Keshy, learned counsel appearing on hehalf of he respondets - ri t n No2, 3 & submits that pursuant to the decision of the Supre Court in the matter of Ashoka Smekeless Gl indie (P) Ltd, (supra), a policy has been eolved in the year 2007. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have no objection, if berty s reserved to the petitions t li i er o make an plioation for refnd the cess payment) if enyt 3) in View of the foregoing, accordng to learned counsi for the etitioners notng survives in this matter for adjudication. 4) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of reserving the liberty to the petitioners to make an appropriate application before the authorities oonoerned for refund of excess payment, if any, if so advised. 5) Consequently, pending applioations, if any, stand disposed of. / S(§- t K. gniiri 'udge 1 (2007) 2 SCC 640 ( e e a 4 me oa v ap u of ex i e p hi Saish Amt J