IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.367 of 2010 M/S Tanu International , a Proprietary Concern having its place of business at Hari om Apartment, 202, B-Block, Exhibition, Patna -1 through its Proprietor, Amit kumar Dhandhania, s/o late Sajan Kumar Dhandhania, r/o Hari Om Apartment, 202, B-Block, Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna Versus 1. The East Central Railway through its General Manager, Hajipur, Vaishali 2. The Controller of Stores, ECR, Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna 3. The Chief Materials Manager, ECR, Hajipur 4. The Deputy Material Manager, ECR, Samastipur ----------- For the appellant: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate For the railway: Mr. Sunil kumar Ravi, Advocate --- 3 20/4/2010 IA. No.1948 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 139 days in preferring the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient grounds do exist for condonation of delay and accordingly the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. LPA. No.367 of 2010 As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission and final disposal. On consent of learned counsel for the parties, it 2 is finally heard. In this appeal the assail is to the order dated 25.8.2009 passed in CWJC. No.16551 of 2008. Be it noted, the said writ petition was disposed of along with other connected writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has issued certain directions and out of which three directions are relevant for the present purpose: (ii) There is no disputed question for reconciliation in the instant case as far as facts relevant for refund of money is concerned. Thus the writ applications are maintainable and petitioners are entitled to refund of deposited amount within two months, failing which they are liable to pay compensation. (v) The issue whether the petitioners would be entitled to interest on the deposited amount from the date of its deposit would involve scrutiny of facts, which could be well decided only in terms of settlement/arbitration clause provided in clause 8 of the Standard Bidding Documents in view of the assertion of the Railways that they were prevented from sufficient reasons in effecting the delivery. (vi) The petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to take steps for appointment of an arbitrator.” It is apposite to note here, being dissatisfied with the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, the railway administration has preferred LPA. No.1474 of 2009 and other connected appeals and 3 a Division Bench on 22.12.2009 had passed the following order: In our view the authorities of the Railways cannot be absolved from their responsibility in causing delay in delivery of the auction materials. They further sat tight over the matter forcing the successful bidder to claim for refund of their money through writ petitions. Now when the refund has been ordered by the writ court without any interest, we are of the opinion that there is no good ground to interfere with such judgment. We want to make it clear that there was no disputed issue of facts arising for deciding the matter at hand and hence it was one of those appropriate cases where the relief has been granted in accordance with law, justice and equity and it does not require any interference by us.” In view of aforesaid, as far as the stand of the railway is concerned, the same stands foreclosed. At this juncture, Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submitted that though the learned Single Judge has directed for refund within two months failing which the amount to carry compensation, the said amount has not yet been paid by the railways. Regard being had to the factual matrix and the submissions put forth by Mr. S.D.Sanjay, we are inclined to direct the railway administration to pay the 4 sum as directed by the learned Single Judge in clause (ii) of his order by May, 2010 failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. As far as the clause no.(vi) is concerned, the learned Single Judge has asked the present appellant – writ petitioner to take steps for appointment of arbitrator. It is not disputed that the relief for grant of interest on non-refund of the amount deposited at the appropriate time was not granted. Though Mr. Sanjay made endeavour to impress upon us that the writ court could have adjudicated the same, yet we are not impressed with the said submission. It will depend upon many a fact. Thus, the direction of the learned Single Judge relegating the appellant to take steps for appointment of an arbitrator cannot be found fault with. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the learned Single Judge, the appeal stands disposed of. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)