RAJINDAR SACHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was heard along with a number of other petitions. The points being common this writ petition will dispose of all other petitions also. ( 2 ) THE petitioner Company is carrying on the business of conversion of wheat into various wheat products like Suji, Maida, Atta and Bran. In exercise of power conferred by S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government has made the Wheat Roller Flour Mill (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 (hereinafter to he called the Control Order 1957 ). Cl. 3 of Control Order 1957 provides that no owner or person in charge of roller mill shall manufacture or cause to be manufactured any wheat product except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued under this Order. The circumstances in which it can be cancelled or suspended are also provided therein. Cl. 10 empowers the licensing authority to issue directions to a licensee in regard to the production or manufacture of different kinds of products and also sources and manner in which wheat shall be obtained for the purpose of manufacture of products. In accordance with the said provisions roller milk are supplied wheat from the stock held by the Food Corporation of India on behalf of the Union of India. The wheat is supplied to the mills at a subsidised rates. Issue price of wheat is fixed at different times based on the existence of various circumstances, like availability, production and other incidental causes. ( 3 ) THE Central Government has in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (e) of sub- sec. (2) of S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, issued the Delhi Roller Mills Wheat Products (Ex-Mill and Retail) Price Control Order 1979 (hereinafter to be called the Control Order 1979 ). It defines wheat products to mean Suji, Maida, Atta or Bran. Cl. 3 of Control Order 1979 provides that no owner or other person incharge of a roller mill shall sell or offer for sale ex-mill any of the wheat products at a price exceeding the price specified in the table of the said order. The Central Government in pursuance of this power fixed the issue price of wheat at Rs. 130. 00per quintal from 1-12-78 to 31-3-1981. The Central Government in pursuance of this power fixed the issue price of wheat at Rs. 130. 00per quintal from 1-12-78 to 31-3-1981. Correspondingly the price for various wheat products was also fixed at the same time. Price which is fixed for the wheat products necessarily takes into account as one of the main constituents the price at which wheat is issued to the mills. Consequently whenever there is rise in the issue price of the wheat there is corresponding rise in the wheat products, at which roller flour mills can sell their products. A statement showing the issue price of wheat and wheat products on different points of time would be helpful in understanding the controversy. (contd. on col. 2) The same is as follows : (See table below) From the table above it will be seen that the issue price of wheat was Rs. 130. 00 up to 31-3- 1981 and was raised to Rs. 155. 00 with effect from 1-4-1981. It will also be noticed that correspondingly the maximum price at which the wheat products could be sold was also raised from 175. 00 to 204/- with effect from 1-4- 1981. Evidently on 31-3-1981 there is bound to be stock of wheat lying with the mills which had been issued to them at the old issue price of Rs. 130. 00. If no action was taken with regard to that stock the mills could and would sell wheat products from 1-4-1981 onwards at the higher price of Rs. 204. 00, even though this higher price has been fixed keeping in view the issue price of wheat at Rs. 155. 00. Taking that into account the Deputy Commissioner directed the Inspectorate to verify the remaining stock of wheat lying with the Roller Mills on 31-3-1981 and after verifying issue the certificate by Food Supply Officer showing the quantity of wheat available on the said date. The Roller Mills were also directed to pay the difference in the cost of wheat that is Rs. 25. 00 per qunital on the balance of wheat available with them as closing balance on 31- 3-1981. It was made clear that any Roller Mills which fails to deposit the said amount with the F. C. I, will not be given the wheat. The petitioner admitted that in pursuance of that they paid a sum of Rs. 83,232. 25. 00 per qunital on the balance of wheat available with them as closing balance on 31- 3-1981. It was made clear that any Roller Mills which fails to deposit the said amount with the F. C. I, will not be given the wheat. The petitioner admitted that in pursuance of that they paid a sum of Rs. 83,232. 31 as difference in the price of wheat. At that time no resort was made to the Court. A further rise in the issue price of wheat was made with effect from 1-8-1982 raising it to Rs. 185. 00 and correspondingly wheat products that is Maida price was raised from 204. 00 to 245. 00. The respondents naturally followed the same old practice and informed the Roller Mills to give an undertaking in the following terms failing which further delivery would be stopped with wheat products Period wheat maida suji atta bran 1-7-76 to 31-8-76 135. 00 190. 00 174. 00 112. 00 50. 00 1-9-76 to 30-11-78 125. 00 173. 00 170. 00 112. 00 50. 00 1-12-78 to 31-3-81 130. 00 175. 00 190. 00 131. 00 73. 00 1-4-81 to 31-7-82 155. 00 204. 00 210. 00 145. 00 103. 00 1-8-82 to 14-4-83 185. 00 245. 00 251. 00 165. 00 1io. 00 15-4-83 to 9-8-84 208. 00 276. 00 283. 00 180. 00 117. 00 10-8-84 onwards 172. 00 227. 00 233. 00 162. 00 102. 00 effect from 1-8-1982. The undertaking from the Mills was as follows : "that we agree to pay the difference between old price and revised price in respect of stocks of both wheat and wheat products held by us on the morning of 1-8-1982 including those in transit by 31-7-1982. "it is at this stage that the petitioner came to this Court making a grievance that there is no jurisdiction with the respondents to demand this difference in the issue price and the revised issue price on the stock which was lying with them on 31-7-1982. "it is at this stage that the petitioner came to this Court making a grievance that there is no jurisdiction with the respondents to demand this difference in the issue price and the revised issue price on the stock which was lying with them on 31-7-1982. ( 4 ) THE petitioner s case in short is that it is the full owner of the wheat purchased by it and with its own money and that if there is any rise in issue price of wheat for subsequent deliveries it cannot be asked to pay this difference in price held by it in its stock in which title passed to it long time back. The only compulsion according to the petitioners is that it cannot sell wheat products at a price higher than the fixed under Control Order of 1979 or as amended from time to time. The plea in short is that though undoubtedly there was stock lying with the petitioner on 31-7- 1982 which it had received on old issue price of Rs. 155. 00, it was not necessary for it to sell Maida at the old price of Rs. 204. 00, but was within its rights to sell the same at the new price w. e. f. 1-8-1982, at the rate of Rs. 245. 00 which has, however, been fixed on the new issue price of wheat at Rs. 185. 00, and the same applies to subsequent rises in issue prices of wheat. The respondents strenuously challenge this claimed right of the petitioner. According to them and there seems a fair amount of justification for the contention that theissue price of wheat and the price fixed for wheat products under Control Order of 1979 is one integrated single transaction meaning thereby that the price of wheat product is fixed to taking into account the issue price of wheat. Thus when the issue price of wheat is Rs. 155. 00 the price fixed for Maida is Rs. 204. 00 and when it is Rs. 185. 00 the price fixed is Rs. 245. 00; when it was Rs. 208. 00 the price fixed is Rs. 276. 00. Accordingly to the respondents the petitioner wants to take advantage of the subsidized wheat lying in its stock on 31-7- 1982 and to have liberty to sell Maida not at maximum price of Rs. 204. 185. 00 the price fixed is Rs. 245. 00; when it was Rs. 208. 00 the price fixed is Rs. 276. 00. Accordingly to the respondents the petitioner wants to take advantage of the subsidized wheat lying in its stock on 31-7- 1982 and to have liberty to sell Maida not at maximum price of Rs. 204. 00 which was the corresponding price fixed but at the enhanced price of Rs. 245. 00 which was fixed with reference to the issue price of Rs. 185. 00. It will be seen that prices are fixed by the authorities so as to keep a balance between the reasonable expectation of Roller Mills for a decent margin of profits and the requirement of public for the supply of essential commodity at a reasonable price. In that context price obviously cannot be fixed under the Control Order so as to give excessive profit to the Roller Mills, and that is why when fixing price of wheat products, the issue price of wheat plays significant and critical role in the price mechanism. It is thus apparent that there were two options open to the respondents. One was to direct the petitioners to sell the wheat products (Maida) at Rs. 204. 00 manufactured out of the stock which it had obtained at the issue price of wheat of Rs. 155. 00. It cannot be disputed that if the same had been ordered no objection could be raised by the petitioner for the obvious reasons that the reasonableness of this price already stood determined for so long. This is also clear from the fact that no objection was ever raised to the fixation of the price of wheat at Rs. 155. 00 and to price of Maida at Rs. 204. 00 which was prevailing prior to 31-7-1982. I must, therefore, proceed on the basis that the price fixed for wheat products was reasonable to the petitioner and caused no injustice. Considering that I would expect the petitioners not to sell Maida prepared from the existing stock of wheat at a higher price than old price of Rs. 204. 00. Indeed there is no equity in permitting the petitioner to take advantage of this increased price and pocket this unintended benefit to the exclusion of the consumer or the State treasury. Considering that I would expect the petitioners not to sell Maida prepared from the existing stock of wheat at a higher price than old price of Rs. 204. 00. Indeed there is no equity in permitting the petitioner to take advantage of this increased price and pocket this unintended benefit to the exclusion of the consumer or the State treasury. The respondents found that it may not be administratively possible to split the old stock from the new arrivals and to keep constant watch whether the Maida that was sold was manufactured from the old wheat stock or from the new wheat stock, it could have resorted to the other option by directing that no further wheat will be supplied to the petitioners until they had exhausted the old stock lying with them on 31-7-1982. Now if that had been done the petitioners would have been at a disadvantage and their business would have suffered because they would have been restricted to carry on the business till they had exhausted the existing stock-obviously an unhappy situation. However, not to put the petitioners in this quandary as to interrupt their regular flow of business the Government gave direction which in short amounted to appropriating the existing stock at the old price of Rs. 155. 00 and issuing the same wheat at the new price of Rs. 185 per quintal. So, when the price was raised to Rs. 155. 00 with effect from 1st Aug. 1982 it was perfectly legitimate for the respondent Commissioner of Food to direct that before any further wheat is supplied to the petitioners they must pay the difference of the cost of wheat at the rate of Rs. 30. 00 per quintal on the basis of balance of wheat available with them as closing balance on 31st July, 1982. The petitioner rightly gave an undertaking with the result that they continued getting the deliveries uninterruptedly and were also in a position to sell wheat products Maida etc. , at an enhanced price of Rs. 245. 00obviously for the reason because now any product manufactured by them was out of the issue price of wheat at the rate of Rs. 185. 00. This method adopted by the respondents I should have thought was in accordance with the Control Order 1979 because it in effect amounted to requisitioning the existing stock on the old price of Rs. 155. 185. 00. This method adopted by the respondents I should have thought was in accordance with the Control Order 1979 because it in effect amounted to requisitioning the existing stock on the old price of Rs. 155. 00 and reissuing the same at the new price of Rs. 185. 00. The respondents though they did not adopt the formal method of requisitioning the existing stock and releasing the same at a higher price, in fact did precisely this by asking the petitioner to deposit the balance of the difference. The petitioners agree to pay the difference and continued to get their future deliveries uninterrupted. But still they impugne this action of the respondents. On first principles I would be of the view that there is no cause for the petitioner to complain. The petitioners are prohibited from carrying on any trade of manufacturing wheat products except in terms of the licence issued to them. They have necessarily to receive wheat at issue price from the F. C. I. which supplies them the wheat at subsidized price. The price of wheat products is fixed under 1979 Control Order accordingly keeping in view as one of its main elements the issue price. Thus the two i. e. the price at which wheat is received by the petitioners and the permissible price at which wheat products can be sold are closely interrelated, one cannot be divorced from each other. An increase in price of wheat will necessarily call for increase in the price of wheat products and that is what has been consistently done by the authorities by issuing various notifications at different points of time. In face of that what conceivable reason can there be for the petitioner to be allowed to take advantage by charging higher price for wheat products manufactured from stock of wheat purchased at the old price prevailing prior to 1st Aug. 1982. 1 can frankly find none. It was, however, sought to be suggested that in the past when price of wheat was reduced in 1976 from Rs. 135. 00 to Rs. 125. 00 the petitioners were not refunded the difference between the earlier price prior to 1st July, 1976 i. e. of Rs. 135. 00 on the stock which was then with the petitioners on 1st Sept. 135. 00 to Rs. 125. 00 the petitioners were not refunded the difference between the earlier price prior to 1st July, 1976 i. e. of Rs. 135. 00 on the stock which was then with the petitioners on 1st Sept. 1976, the suggestion being that because of the price reduction in wheat and wheat products petitioners could sell their wheat and wheat products as a lesser price even though wheat was supplied to them at the earlier higher price. Correspondingly it is suggested that now that the price of wheat products has been raised the respondents are acting inequitably in asking the petitioner to pay the difference to the department though no refund was given to them in the drop in prices in the earlier years. This argument of the petitioners would have been sound, but is untenable because it is based on assumptions which are not established on record. This plea is denied in the return where it is specifically stated that the government by recovering the differential cost is not earning any profit or any pecuniary benefits but rather on the other hand is ensuring that any unintended benefit is not passed on to the Roller Flour Mills due to increase of wheat and its products prices. It is positively stated that when in the past prices were revised downward clear instructions were issued to the State Government not to give effect to the revised price until the stocks purchased at higher prices were disposed of by the mills, and similarly sufficient and reasonable time was given to mills to dispose of their wheat products at the old prices before the revised prices were made effective and the question of suffering any loss did not arise. The stand of the respondents seems to be supported by the facts as they have come on record. It will be seen that issue price of wheat was Rs. 208. 00 per qunital upto 9-8-1984 and correspondingly the price of Maida was Rs. 276. 00 per qunital. The price of wheat has been reduced from 10- 8-1984 to Rs. 172. 00 and the price of Maida to Rs. 227. 00 per quintal in terms of Control Order 1979. Thus, the petitioner cannot sell Maida at more than Rs. 227. 00 per quintal with effect from 10-8-1984. 276. 00 per qunital. The price of wheat has been reduced from 10- 8-1984 to Rs. 172. 00 and the price of Maida to Rs. 227. 00 per quintal in terms of Control Order 1979. Thus, the petitioner cannot sell Maida at more than Rs. 227. 00 per quintal with effect from 10-8-1984. If the case of the petitioner that the real hardship is that in case the price of the wheat products is reduced he cannot sell even those products manufactured out of the old stock of wheat lying with him before the price was reduced was correct, there would be some justification for the petitioner to complain that the rise and fall in the prices should not result in any demand for deposit by the respondents. It could then be said if on the price being raised the demand for paying the difference by the petitioner is justified equally the department should also be liable to refund the difference on the balance stock, when the price is reduced. The facts, however, go against the petitioner. We have on record a letter written by the petitioners to the Deputy Commissioner, Food and Supplies dt. 12th Nov. 1984. 1 am marking it as a and making it a part of the record. This statement shows the opening balance of wheat and wheat products on 10th Aug. 1984. The stocks position shows that the petitioner had 5771-78-92 quintals of wheat and 1039-50 quintals of Maida on that day. The said stock has been sold by them after 10th Aug. 1984 at Rs. 256-84 per quintal for Maida (whereas the revised price after 10th Aug. 1984 is Rs. 227. 00 per quintal), Suji at Rs. 252-22 per quintal (whereas it is Rs. 233. 00 after 10th Aug. 1984 ). It is evident that if the petitioners are to strictly comply with the Control Order 1979 they have committed an offence because they have sold the wheat products at higher price than permitted under the prices fixed under Control Order, 1979. The only reason why no action is being taken against them that because the Maida which has been sold at Rs. 256-84 after 10-8-1984 is out of the stock of wheat which was lying with them on 9-8-84 and which has been supplied by them on old price of Rs. 208. The only reason why no action is being taken against them that because the Maida which has been sold at Rs. 256-84 after 10-8-1984 is out of the stock of wheat which was lying with them on 9-8-84 and which has been supplied by them on old price of Rs. 208. 00, and could be sold by them up to the maximum price fixed i. e. at Rs. 266. 00 - per quintal. It is relevant to note that the price which is fixed under the Control Order 1979 is maximum at which products can be sold. It does not assure to the petitioners that that maximum price will be available to them at all times in the market. What is done by Control Order 1979 is the fixing of the corresponding price of wheat and wheat products and permit within that range the market mechanism to operate. The point, however, to emphasise is that even though the maximum price at which Maida could be sold was fixed at Rs. 227. 00 per quintal with effect from 10th Aug. 1984 the petitioners, however, allowed to sell it at Rs. 256. 00 per quintal; and this is only permissible because Maida has been prepared out of the stock which they had purchased earlier at the higher price of Rs. 208. 00 per quintal. Thus the respondents are right in their suggestion that in the past or even now whenever prices are reduced the petitioners are permitted to avail of the benefit of the old price and are not compelled to sell it at lower price which is fixed later on. It is this justification that the respondents plead for saying that since the petitioners were not compelled to sell the Maida at Rs. 204. 00 (price prevailing on 31-7-82) produced out of existing stock of wheat purchased at Rs. 155. 00 but are being permitted to sell it at increased price of Rs. 245. 00 per quintal (fixed on wheat purchase price of Rs. 185. 00 per quintal, w. e. f. 1-8-1982), they must make up for the difference in the wheat price by paying back Rs. 30. 00 per quintal difference to the respondents. 155. 00 but are being permitted to sell it at increased price of Rs. 245. 00 per quintal (fixed on wheat purchase price of Rs. 185. 00 per quintal, w. e. f. 1-8-1982), they must make up for the difference in the wheat price by paying back Rs. 30. 00 per quintal difference to the respondents. I was prima facie inclined to accept the reasonableness of the demand by the respondents and would have so held firmly had I not been faced with the most formidable weapon produced by the petitioners in the nature of Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1773 . In that case the appellants were procuring agents. Their duty was to procure rice at prices specified by the Government from time to time and also to deliver it at prices so specified to the Government or persons nominated by it. Three orders were passed by the Government increasing the selling prices. The first increase took. place on 22nd July, 1947, the second on or about 6th Dec. , 1947 and the third on 3rd Nov. 1948. The appellants had stock lying with them which they had purchased earlier at a lower purchasing price. As they could sell the rice at new increased price they became automatically entitled to a larger sum than they were before the increase. the government thought that the procuring, agents were not entitled to keep this increase because of the increased price on the old stock and, therefore, they directed that surcharge should be levied from the procuring agents. Another method concerning the increase made in Nov. 1948 was to requisition the stock of rice lying with procuring agents on the day immediately preceding the coming into force of the increased price at the rate then obtaining, and thereafter releasing such rice to the procuring agents only upon their paying the surcharge or on their executing the agreement to pay the same. The Court held that under the contract the procuring agent was the owner and, therefore, the question of realising any surcharge from him does not arise. The Court held that under the contract the procuring agent was the owner and, therefore, the question of realising any surcharge from him does not arise. However, with regard to the money realised by the method of requisitioning existing stock and releasing it at new rates, held that where as a. result of requisitioning and release the Government had obtained monies from the appellant or entered into an engagement by the procuring agents to pay dues those engagements were legal and enforceable. The learned Judge was of the view that under the Essential Supplies Act, it was open to the Government to requisition the supply lying with the procuring agent and then to release it whether to an outsider or back again to the same procuring agent and this method having been adopted the requisition was legal at the price at which procuring agent had purchased it and the appellants were free to obtain or not to obtain the release at increased price but having so obtained the release they could not avoid their liability. With very great respect I would have been inclined to follow the ratio laid down by Sarkar J, however, this course is not open to me because the view of Sarkar J. , did not find favour with the two other learned Judges who constituted the Bench. The majority held that even though there was an increase in the sale price with the result that the procuring agents could now sell it at a new increased price and would automatically obtain higher benefit, still no surcharge could be imposed. The majority held that the effort to mop up by the government bythe three impugned orders of the difference between the old and the new prices had no legal basis. The claim for refund could not be resisted. The majority also held that even the order of requisitioning and releasing the rice at a higher price in fact amounted to imposing tax and that the same was done without legislative sanction, the surcharge asked for was invalid. The majority, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed the refund even in those cases by which the method of requisitioning had been followed and what had been dismissed by Sarkar J. The appeals were disposed of in accordance with the majority judgment. The majority, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed the refund even in those cases by which the method of requisitioning had been followed and what had been dismissed by Sarkar J. The appeals were disposed of in accordance with the majority judgment. In that view it is obviously not permissible for me to follow the ratio laid down in the minority judgment of Sarkar J. I may also note that a Division Bench of Patna High Court in C. W. 3183/82 decided on 4th May, : (reported in AIR 1984 Patna 331) has relied on this judgment. In that case also similar directions to refund the excess price when it was raised from 1st Aug. 1982 was the subject matter of challenge in that Court. Following Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 it quashed such a direction and set aside the directions of payment of extra price by the millers. I do not think it necessary to discuss this authority because no reasoning is given in the said judgment and it is based totally on the alleged ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1773 . 1 may, however, notice that the Patna High Court has observed that the petitioner had suffered losses due to decrease in prices in part. I have shown above that this statement is not correct and in fact the millers have always been allowed the advantage of the increased price even though the prices of food products were reduced so long as the wheat products had been manufactured out of the old stock of wheat which had been obtained at a higher price. In my view to permit the petitioners to retain the uncalled for benefit of the increase perhaps does seem unfair. It is doubly inequitable because the petitioners took advantage of the regular supply of wheat by giving an undertaking to pay the difference between the old and revised price in respect of stocks but having obtained them now, they go back on the undertaking and seek to have refund. This amounts really to going behind their own representation. It is doubly inequitable because the petitioners took advantage of the regular supply of wheat by giving an undertaking to pay the difference between the old and revised price in respect of stocks but having obtained them now, they go back on the undertaking and seek to have refund. This amounts really to going behind their own representation. It is quite clear that if they had refused to give the undertaking the respondents would have refused to supply them any more wheat but now that they by this agreement obtained the wheat seek to recover back the amount which they had undertaking to pay. One should normally think that they are prevented by their conduct from seeking any relief from this Court in its equitable jurisdiction. In this connection reference may be made to the case of New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 679 where it was laid down that a party to an instrument of transaction cannot take advantage of one part of a document or transaction and reject the rest. That is to say, no party can accept or reject the same instrument or transaction. Here the petitioners are in fact seeking to reject and repudiate that part of agreement which was to pay the difference between the old and the revised stock and at the same time to take advantage of the further deliveries which would not have been made to them had they not given this undertaking. ( 5 ) ON the basis of these various considerations I would personally have been disinclined on this ground not to exercise my equitable jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. But considering the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1773 , and also that a Bench of the Patna High Court has taken a contrary view and "also further that my brother Wad J. is of the view that the petitioners are in law entitled to the relief of refund I am not inclined to carry my view to the point of dissent. ( 6 ) I would, therefore, allow the petitions as follows : ( 7 ) IN C. W. 2856/82 claim is also made for directing the refund of Rs. 83,232-31 which was recovered in pursuance of memorandum dt. 27th March, 1981. ( 6 ) I would, therefore, allow the petitions as follows : ( 7 ) IN C. W. 2856/82 claim is also made for directing the refund of Rs. 83,232-31 which was recovered in pursuance of memorandum dt. 27th March, 1981. This payment was made and no challenge was made to this payment at that time by filing any writ petition. This petition was filed after a new memorandum of 29th July, 1982 was issued. I would, therefore, refuse the prayer so far as this payment is concerned. The present writ petition relate to the price rise with effect from 1st Aug. 1982 when it was raised from Rs. 155. 00tors. 185. 00. ( 8 ) CIVIL Writ 1092 to C. W. 1096/83 relate to the period from 15th April 1983 when the price was raised from Rs. 185. 00 to Rs. 208. 00. C. W. 813 to 818/83 relate to the period from 15th April, 1983 when the price was raised from Rs. 185. 00 to Rs. 208. 00 and in some of these writ petitions the petitioners had actually paid the difference and in the others they had given bank guarantee for the difference. In view of the allowing of the writ petitions it is obvious that the petitioners are not now required to pay the difference of the amount demanded from them. The bank guarantees which are given could no longer be encashed because that is not necessary. The Supreme Court in its order of 2nd Sept 1983 had directed in Civil Appeal No. 6700 to 6710/83 that where the petitioners had paid the amount and are ultimately found entitled to the refund they shall be entitled to it along with interest at the bank rate ruling on the date of deposit for the period during which the amount remains with the respondents. The respondents will naturally now in working out the refund due calculate in terms of the said directions of the Supreme Court. As some calculations etc. , will have to be made the respondents are permitted three months time to make the refunds.