IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16550 of 2008 M/S SHANTI STEELS Versus THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS WITH CWJC No.18761 of 2008 M/S SHANTI STEELS Versus THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS WITH CWJC No.18963 of 2008 M/S SHANTI GLOBAL PVT.LTD. Versus THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS WITH CWJC No.16400 of 2008 M/S SHANTI STEELS Versus THE EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS ----------- 3 25.07.2009 C.W.J.C. No. 16550 of 2008 Ms. Shanti Steels Vs. The East Central Railway & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 18761 of 2008 Ms. Shanti Steels Vs. The East Central Railway & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 18963 of 2008 Vs. The East Central Railway & Ors. and C.W.J.C. No. 16400 of 2008 Ms. Shanti Steels Vs. The Eastern Central Railway & Ors. are taken up together. In all these four cases it transpires that the petitioners being the highest bidder deposited earnest money with the fall of hammer. The learned counsel for the petitioners state that they could not deposit the balance of the money within stipulated period of 50 days as railway did not refund the same. It is further their case that they had participated in other bid also. They had deposited entire amount in some of the cases in which they figured as highest bidder. According to them, the railways failed to deliver the material in question. As a result, they could not 2 either sell the materials in question in open market or any finished products accruing from it. It is further their case that the railways neither delivered the material nor refunded the money as such same hampered in rotation of business. The petitioners further submit that if the money would have been refunded or in alternative scraps in question would have been delivered, they would have been in a position to deposit the entire money in time. Learned counsel for the railways states that the petitioners did not deposit the money in time. In view of the terms and conditions, the railways forfeited the earnest amount. Learned counsel for the railways further states that the petitioners should have been ready with the money for each bid and for this he ought not to depend on any other circumstances or contingencies. Clause 8 of the conditions of auction sale products for settlement of dispute by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the railways. As such, in view of the aforesaid clause and also taking into consideration that in similar type of cases this court vide order dated 22.11.2008 passed in Request Case No. 28 of 2008, 29 of 2008 and 27 of 2008 have appointed sole arbitrator. After hearing the counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration Clause 8 of the terms of auction and sale, this court directs that these cases be also referred to the same sole arbitrator as appointed by a Bench of this court in aforesaid request on the same terms and conditions. Kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)