3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a contractor working with the East Coast Rail
ways. He carried out some bridge work for which he has been paid the amount after deduction of
royalty. It is contended that deduction of such royalty at the rate, which it has been deduct
ed, has been declared to be illegal by the judgment of this Court dated 18.03.2015 passed in W
.P.(C) No. 11830 of 2013 and other connected writ petitions. It is contended that the petition
er would also be entitled to the benefit of the said judgment.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this petition direc
ting that in case, with regard to the grievance made in this petition, the petitioner files a
comprehensive representation before opposite party no.5 along with a certified copy of this or
der and annexing the judgment of this Court dated 18.03.2015 referred to above, the same shall
be considered and decided in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order as expediti
ously as possible. It is further directed that in case the petitioner is entitled to refund of
the same, the same shall be made within a p Issue urgentcopyas perRuleriod of four months of such decision. s.
