[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shree Nakoda Ispat Limited vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
YOGESH 2026:CGHC:17397
YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.17 NAFR
18:09:34
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3219 of 2020
Shree Nakoda Ispat Limited Having Its Registered Office Near Railway
Crossing, Mowa, Vidhan Sabha Road, Po Saddu , Raipur 492014,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Coal Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi 110001.
2 - Coal India Limited Through The Cmd , Coal Bhawan, Premise No 04
Mar , Plot No. AFIII, Auction Area 1A, New Town , Rajarhat, Kolkatta
700156, West Bengal.
3 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through The Cmd Seepat Road,
Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh 495006.
4 - The General Manager (S And M) South Eastern Coalfield Limited
Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495006.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Sweta Rai, Advocate
For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
16.04.2026
1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality,
validity and propriety of Clause 10.5.2 introduced by way of
amendment to the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) vide notice dated
18.02.2019 issued by the respondent authorities. The petitioner
has prayed for following relief(s):-
"(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to pass appropriate writ quashing the Clause
10.5.2 of notice no SECL/BSP/M&S/
FSA/NCDP/3544 dated 18th Feb 2019 of
respondent no 03/ South Eastern Coalfield
Limited (SECL) as being violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India as being
arbitrary and discriminatory.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to pass appropriate writ directing the
Respondents to reconcile the annual
accounts of the Petitioner as per clause no
12.5.2 of the FSA on variation of supply
grade of coal based upon third party/joint
sampling / referee lab report at the earliest.
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to pass appropriate writ directing the
Respondents to pay the sum due towards
Royalty, DMF and NMET that have not been
paid under Credit notes, along with interest
to the petitioner, as per clause no 13.2 of the
FSA
OR
This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
pass appropriate writ directing the
Respondents to refund/pay the sum collected
towards Royalty, DMF and NMET through
Debit notes, along with interest to the
petitioner, as per clause no 13.2 of the FSA.
(iv) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to pass appropriate writ directing the
Respondents to pay the sum due against the
Goods and service Tax, which has not be
refunded back to the Petitioner due to
erroneous calculation on part of the
Respondents, along with interest.
(v) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to pass appropriate writ directing the
Respondents to pay the interest on the
amount due in each credit note from 30 days
from the deemed annual reconciliation date
till the date of actual payment.
(vi) Award cost of proceedings in favour of
petitioner;
(vii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to pass such other and further
orders in favour of petitioner as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper in the present
facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
assailed the legality, validity and propriety of Clause 10.5.2
introduced by way of amendment to the Fuel Supply Agreement
(FSA) vide notice dated 18.02.2019 issued by the respondent
authorities. The said clause, to the extent it permits the
respondents to indefinitely withhold refunds arising out of credit
notes, is ex facie arbitrary, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. It is contended that the impugned clause
creates an unconscionable and one-sided mechanism whereby, in
cases of supply of superior grade coal, the petitioner is
mandatorily required to make immediate payment along with all
statutory levies including royalty, DMF, NMET and GST; however,
in cases of supply of inferior grade coal, the respondents do not
refund the corresponding levies and instead restrict the refund
only to the basic value and GST, that too without any stipulated
timeline, thereby resulting in unjust enrichment at the cost of the
petitioner.
3. It is further submitted that the impugned Clause 10.5.2 is contrary
to and inconsistent with Clauses 9.2 and 12.5 of the FSA, which
contemplate proper reconciliation of accounts and equitable
adjustment in cases of grade variation. The action of the
respondents in withholding legitimate dues of the petitioner,
despite repeated requests, reflects a callous and arbitrary exercise
of power, leading to blockage of substantial working capital of the
petitioner and causing severe financial prejudice to its industrial
operations. Such conduct, it is argued, is not only in breach of
contractual obligations but also fails the test of fairness and
reasonableness expected from "State" instrumentalities.
4. It is also contended that the respondents have deliberately carried
out erroneous assessments while issuing credit notes, particularly
by excluding statutory components such as royalty, DMF and
NMET, and by improperly dealing with GST implications, thereby
depriving the petitioner of the full and lawful refund due to it. This
action is stated to be contrary to the statutory framework
governing Goods and Services Tax and amounts to illegal
retention of tax components, which otherwise ought to have been
duly adjusted and refunded. The petitioner further submits that
such arbitrary retention of amounts, without any authority of law, is
wholly impermissible and liable to be set aside.
5. It is further submitted that in terms of Clause 13.2 of the FSA, the
petitioner is also entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the
refund amount from the date it became due till its actual
realization. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
learned counsel submits that the impugned clause and the
consequential actions of the respondents deserve to be quashed,
and appropriate directions be issued for refund of the withheld
amounts along with applicable interest, in the interest of justice.
6. Lastly, It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition
is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Power and Others vs. Union
of India and analogous cases (WPC No. 3366/2020 decided on
03.09.2024), wherein in similar circumstances, this Hon'ble Court
has already directed the respondents, particularly SECL, to place
the claim of the petitioner companies before the State Government
of Chhattisgarh for refund/adjustment of excess royalty on account
of grade slippage, and further directed the State Government to
consider and decide the same expeditiously in light of the second
proviso to Rule 64B of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and
the communication issued by the Ministry of Coal dated 12/8-
9/2023. It is also submitted that subsequent to the said judgment,
the Ministry of Coal, Government of India has issued a clarification
dated 13.01.2026, categorically stating that any amount collected
on the basis of higher grade of coal, which is subsequently found
to be of lower grade, must be refunded, as retention of such
excess amount would be contrary to settled legal principles and
would amount to unjust enrichment.
7. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that the present
writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the directions
issued in the case of D.B. Power (supra), with an additional
direction to the respondents to take into consideration the
aforesaid clarification dated 13.01.2026 while processing and
deciding the claim of the petitioner within a time-bound manner.
The chart has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner,
which is reproduced below :-
S. FSA No. Qty Grade Supply By Road/ Agreed End use
No. (TPA) Location Rail Basic plant
Price
(PMT)
01 A-238 2,700 G5 Vijay West Road 2775 Sponge
Iron Plant
(200 TPD)
02 A-623 27,500 G11 Gevra OC Road 1245 -do-
03 A-624 13,600 G11 Kusmunda Road 1245 -do-
04 A-1247 18,400 G13 Manikpur Road 1180 -do-
OC
05 A-1248 6,300 G11 Gevra OC Road 1295 -do-
06 A-9 20,000 G11 Gevra Rail 970 Sponge
Road Iron Plate
(350 TPD)
07 A-206 43,200 G6 Kumda Rail 2280 -do-
08 A-395 15,400 G11 Kusmunda Road 970 -do-
09 A-396 15,400 G11 Gevra OC Road 1070 -do-
10 A-625 6,900 G11 Gevra OC Road 1245 -do-
11 A-626 3,400 G11 Kusmunda Road 1245 -do-
OC
12 A-1246 3,800 G11 Gevra OC Road 1295 -do-
13 A-131 9,000 G11 Gevra OC Road 970 Ferro Alloy
14 A-1002 2,000 G7 Chirmiri Road 2411 Power
OC Plant
15 A-1003 7,600 G15 Jampali Road 708 Power
OC Plant
1,94,800
8. In view of the aforesaid chart, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that a bare perusal thereof clearly reveals that the
petitioner has been allotted coal under multiple Fuel Supply
Agreements (FSAs) across different grades, quantities, sources
and modes of transportation, strictly in accordance with the
contractual stipulations, and the agreed basic price per metric
tonne varies from Rs.708/- to Rs.2775/- depending upon the grade
of coal, source of supply and mode of dispatch, thereby
demonstrating that the pricing is regulated and not arbitrary; it is
further contended that the petitioner has been receiving coal from
various coalfields such as Gevra OC, Kusmunda, Manikpur OC,
Vijay West, Chirmiri OC and Jampali OC, both by road and rail, for
its sponge iron, ferro alloy and power plants, with a total
contracted quantity of 1,94,800 TPA, which reflects the scale of its
operations and its reliance on such scheduled supplies, and thus
any attempt on the part of the respondent authorities to impose a
uniform or enhanced financial liability dehors the agreed terms of
the FSAs, or to revise the price retrospectively, is wholly arbitrary
and settled principles of law, as the terms of the FSAs cannot be
unilaterally altered to the prejudice of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, has filed
the reply and does not dispute that the controversy involved in the
present writ petition is identical and squarely covered by the
judgment rendered in D.B. Power (supra) decided on 03.09.2024.
It is submitted that the directions issued in the said judgment,
particularly with regard to placing the claims of the petitioner
companies before the State Government of Chhattisgarh for
refund/adjustment of excess royalty, DMF and other levies on
account of grade slippage, and the consequential obligation cast
upon the State Government to consider and decide the same in
light of the second proviso to Rule 64B of the Mineral Concession
Rules, 1960 and the communication issued by the Ministry of Coal
dated 12/8-9/2023, would adequately govern the present case as
well. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have
no objection if the present writ petition is disposed of in similar
terms, and appropriate directions are issued in line with the
aforesaid judgment, subject to compliance within a reasonable
and time-bound manner, in accordance with law.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the material available on record.
11. It is not in dispute that the issue involved in the present writ
petition is identical to the one already adjudicated by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in D.B. Power (supra). Both sides fairly submit
that the controversy stands covered by the aforesaid judgment
and the present petition can be disposed of in terms thereof.
12. After appreciating the contentions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Power
(supra), has passed the order in the following terms :-
"10. Indisputably, petitioner company, in all writ
petitions, having thermal power plant are
engaged in manufacture and distribution of
electricity. They use coal as primary / only raw
material in their respective thermal power plant
for manufacture of electricity. In thermal power
plant, chemical energy in coal gets converted
to heat energy which in turn gets converted to
mechanical energy which ultimately gets
converted to electrical energy. SECL is a
Government of India undertaking and is
engaged in the business of mining of coal and
its sale. SECL is engaged in supply of coal to
various power plants and industries within and
outside the territory of Chhattisgarh including
petitioners in these writ petitions. To fulfill
requirement of coal, petitioner company
purchases coal from respondent SECL through
e-auction under e-auction schemes for power
producers and also entered into Coal Supply
Agreement/Fuel Supply Agreement with the
SECL For the purchase/ supply of coal. As per
agreement, respondent SECL was under
obligation to supply particular grade of coal
assured under the agreement. Price of coal
means sum of base price, other charges and
statutory charges, as applicable at the time of
delivery of coal. In case of grade slippage, the
SECL shall give regular credit note to the
extent of difference in the Base Price of
declared grade and analyzed grade of coal.
11. The Coal India Limited, in order to bring
transparency in the process of sale and supply
of coal, vide notice dated 24.9.2015 issued
revised/modified the Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) by introducing provision of
third party i.e. agency to be appointed by the
seller and agency to be appointed by
purchaser, for sampling and analysis of coal for
declaration and maintenance of grade/quality.
In case of grade slippage/improvement,
credit/debits notes, as the case may be, are to
be issued by SECL.
12. Grievance of petitioners in these batch of
writ petitions is that as per agreement,
respondent SECL is providing coal of a
particular grade and for the purpose of
assessing the quality of coal, provisions are
made providing for taking joint samples in
respect of coal at power station and the loading
point of the petitioner. Coal supplied by SECL
to petitioner was tested and found to be of
inferior quality than which was agreed to be
supplied/invoiced, accordingly, credit notes
were issued in favour of petitioner company. As
credit notes issued by SECL only include
difference in base price and do not include ad
valorem taxes such as royalty, DMF, NMET
etc., therefore, petitioner company represented
before SECL for adjustment of amount of
royalty, DMF, NMET on differential coal base
price. Since the royalty, DMF, NMET charged
by SECL was deposited with the State
Government as per provisions of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957') and the rules
made thereunder i.e. Mineral Concession
Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules of 1960'), said
request of petitioner was forwarded by SECL to
the State Government. However, respondent
State Government refused to adjust/refund
taxes/levies in case of grade slippage of coal.
13. It is not disputed that mining rights have
been leased to the SECL by the State
Government under the provisions of the Act of
1957. As per Section 4 of the Act of 1957, no
mining operation in any area shall be
undertaken except under and in accordance
with the terms and conditions of a mining lease
granted under the Act of 1957 and the rules
made thereunder.
14. Section 9 of the Act of 1957 deals with
royalties in respect of mining leases and
envisages that the holder of a mining lease
shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral
removed or consumed by him or by his agent,
manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee
from the lease area at the rate for the time
being specified in the Second Schedule in
respect of that mineral. Section 9B of the Act of
1957 provides for District Mineral Foundation
(DMF), a non-profit body, and the holder of
mining lease or a prospecting license cum
mining lease shall, in addition to the royalty,
pay to the District Mineral Foundation of the
district in which the mining operations are
carried on, an amount which is equivalent to
such percentage of royalty paid in terms of
Second Schedule. Section 9C provides for
National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) and
the holder of mines is required to make
contribution of a sum equivalent to 2% of the
royalty paid towards NMET simultaneous with
payment of royalty.
15. Thus, it is clear that Section 9 is the
charging section, which enables the State to
recover/charge royalty in respect of the
minerals extracted by the holder from the land
given on lease for the purpose of mining. The
methodology for calculating the amount of
royalty is determined by the Rules and by the
Notifications issued by the Central Government
from time to time. Rule making power has been
conferred on the Central Government by
Section 13 of the Act of 1957 and relevant part
of Section 13 is extracted and reproduced
hereunder:-
"13. Power of Central Government to
make rules in respect of minerals. - (1)
The Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, make rules for
regulating the grant of [reconnaissance
permits, prospecting licenses and mining
leases] in respect of minerals and for
purposes connected (sic) (2) In particular,
and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for
all of any of following matters, namely:-
(a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx
(g) the terms on which, and the conditions
subject to which, any other [reconnaissance
permit, prospecting licences or mining
leases] may be granted or renewed;
(h) xxx xxx xxx
(i) the fixing and collection of fees for
[reconnaissance permits, prospecting
licences or mining leases] surface rent,
security deposit, fines, other fees or charges
and the time within which and the manner in
which the dead rent or royalty shall De
payable;]
(j) to (qqk) xxx xxx xxx
(r) any other matter which is to be, or may
be, prescribed under this Act."
16. In exercise of the powers conferred by
above quoted Section 13, the Rules of 1960
have been framed. Rules 64A, 64B, 64C & 64D
of the Rules of 1960 are relevant Rules, which
pertain to calculation of amount of royalty etc.
payable by the holder of the lease in respect of
the minerals extracted from the land leased to
the holder of the mining lease. Rule 64B of the
Rules of 1960 deals with charging and instance
of payment of royalty in case of minerals
subjected to processing, which reads thus:-
"64B. Charging of Royalty in case of
minerals subjected to processing: (1) In
case processing of run-of-mine mineral is
carried out within the leased area, then ,
royalty shall be chargeable on the processed
mineral removed from the leased area.
(2) In case run-of-mine mineral is removed
from the leased area to a processing plant
which is located outside the leased area,
then, royalty shall be chargeable on the
unprocessed run-of-mine mineral and not on
the processed product."
Rule 64B underwent following amendment
vide Notification dated 7.9.2022 and after
first proviso, following proviso has been
added:
"Provided further that any royalty paid under
the first proviso shall be subject to
adjustment on the basis of-
(a) final declaration of the grade of run-of-
mine coal or lignite after sampling; or
(b) final declaration of the National Coal
Index of the relevant basket of coal grade of
National Lignite Index, as applicable, on the
date of dispatch or consumption.
as the case may be, and payment of shortfall
royalty to the lessor or refund of additional
royalty to the lessee shall be made based on
such adjustment."
17. Upon perusal of above amendment it is
clear that royalty paid at the time of dispatch
shall be subject to adjustment on the basis of
final declaration of grade of run-of-mine coal or
lignite after sampling or final declaration of the
National Coal Index of the relevant basket of
coal grade or National Lignite Index, as
applicable, on the date of dispatch of
consumption, as the case may be, and
payment of shortfall royalty to the lessor or
refund of additional royalty to the lessee shall
be made based on such adjustment. Thus,
insertion of second proviso in Rule 64B of the
Rules of 1960, clearly denote intention of the
Central Government with regard to adjustment
of royalty on the basis of final declaration of the
grade of run-of-mine coal considering that final
declaration of coal/lignite may not be available
at the time of payment of royalty i.e. at the time
of dispatch from or consumption within leased
area, and quantum of royalty varies with the
grade of coal upon sampling.
18. Section 20A of the Act of 1957 empowers
the Central Government to issue direction to
the State Governments. Relevant portion of
Section 20A is reproduced below:-
"20A. Power of Central Government to
issue directions.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, the Central Government may issue
such directions to the State Governments, as
may be required for the conservation of
mineral resources, or on any policy matter in
the national interest, and for the scientific
and sustainable development and
exploitation of mineral resources.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing powers, the
Central Government may also issue
directions in respect of the following matters,
namely:-
(i) improvement in procedure for grant of
mineral concessions and to ensure co-
ordination among agencies entrusted with
according statutory clearances;
(ii) maintenance of internet-based databases
including development and operation of a
mining tenement system;
(iii) implementation and evaluation of
sustainable development frameworks;
(iv) reduction in waste generation and related
waste management practices and promotion
of recycling of materials;
(v) minimizing and mitigating adverse
environmental impacts particularly in respect
of ground water, air, ambient noise and land;
(vi) ensuring minimal ecological disturbance,
in terms of bio-diversity, flora, fauna and
habitat;
(vii) promoting restoration and reclamation
activities so as to make optimal use of mined
out land for the benefit of the local
communities; and
(viii) such other matters as may be
necessary for the purposes of
implementation of this Act."
19. In exercise of its power under Section 20A
of the Minor Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957, which enables the
Central Government to take appropriate steps
to ensure proper and effective implementation
of the Act of 1957, the Ministry of Coal,
Government of India issued the order dated
12th August/September, 2023 to the Chief
Secretaries of various States, including State of
Chhattisgarh, and making reference of second
proviso to Rule 64B of the Rules of 1960, which
provides for adjustment of royalty so paid after
final declaration of grade of coal and also
entitles the mining lease holders to a refund of
additional royalty, if paid, directed the State
Government to refund the differential / excess
royalty and payment to DMF in the event of
grade slippage within one month from the date
of final declaration of the grade of coal else
granted leeway to mining lease holders of
adjustment from royalty and amount payable to
DMF accruing in future. Relevant portion of the
order dated 12th August / September,. 2023
reads thus:-
"Now therefore, in exercise of the said
powers under S.20-A(2)viii) of the MMDR
Act, for ensuring implementation of the
MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder in
letter and spirit, the Central Government
hereby directs the respective State
Governments to refund the
differential/excess royalty and payment to
DMF in the event of grade slippages within
one month from the date of final declaration
of the grade of coal/lignite or National Coal
Index, as applicable, otherwise the minding
lease holders may adjust the same from the
royalty and amount payable to DMF accruing
in future."
20. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that
petitioner company entered into Coal Supply
Agreement with respondent SECL under SECL
agreed to supply a particular grade of coal. It is
also not in dispute that petitioner company paid
the price of coal as per invoices raised by
SECL, which includes all levies and taxes. It is
also not in dispute that the amount received by
SECL towards royalty and other taxes have not
been retained by it and the same has been
deposited in the treasury of the State. It is also
not in dispute that State Government denied to
adjust/refund differential amount of royalty etc.
on account of slippage of grade of coal
supplied to petitioner company, although, as
per second proviso to Rule 64B of the Rules of
1960 the State Government is bound to refund
differential/excess royalty etc. in the event of
grade slippage.
21. A meeting between Secretary, Ministry of
Coal, Govt. of India and the Association of
Power Produces was held on 13.3.2020 to
resolve several issues including issue of refund
of royalty, taxes, levies etc. arising out of grade
slippage. It was resolved in said meeting that
Coal India Limited shall refund all pending
excess levies/taxes on account of grade
slippage and in case of any difficulty is faced by
CIL, the Ministry of Coal shall take up the same
with the concerned State Government of India
issued an Ministry of Coal, order dated 12 th
August/September, 2023 to the Secretaries of
various States including State of Chhattisgarh,
directing the State Governments to refund
differential / excess royalty and payment to
DMF in the event of grade slippage.
22. In the above circumstances, these writ
petitions are disposed of with a direction to the
SECL to put-forth the claim of petitioner in all
these writ petitions for refund/adjustment of
excess amount towards royalty etc. on account
of slippage of grade of coal supplied, before the
State Government of Chhattisgarh within a
period two months and in turn, the State
Government of Chhattisgarh is directed to
reconsider and take decision with respect to
claim of petitioner companies as also SECL
expeditiously, keeping in mind second proviso
to Rule 64B of the Rules of 1960 as well as the
order dated 12/8-9/2023 issued by the Ministry
of Coal, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
23. No order as to costs."
13. In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the fact that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in D.B. Power (supra), this Court is of the considered
opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the
present petition pending, and the same deserves to be disposed
of in terms of the directions already issued therein.
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction to respondent No.3 - SECL to put forth the claim of the
petitioner for refund/adjustment of excess amount towards royalty,
DMF and NMET on account of slippage of grade of coal supplied,
before the State Government of Chhattisgarh within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon
such claim being made, the State Government of Chhattisgarh is
directed to consider and take a decision with respect to the claim
of the petitioner expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law,
keeping in mind the second proviso to Rule 64B of the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960.
15. While doing so, the State Government shall also take into
consideration the directions issued by the Ministry of Coal,
Government of India vide communication dated 12/8-9/2023, as
well as the subsequent clarification dated 13.01.2026, which
categorically mandates that the differential/excess royalty and
other statutory levies collected on account of higher grade of coal,
which is subsequently found to be of lower grade, are liable to be
refunded/adjusted, and retention thereof would amount to unjust
enrichment.
16. It is further directed that the entire exercise, as directed
hereinabove, shall be completed by the State Government within a
further period of three months thereafter, and the admissible
amount, if found due, shall be refunded/adjusted in favour of the
petitioner in accordance with law. Needless to observe that the
petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy, in
accordance with law, in case of any grievance surviving thereafter.
17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
