Judgment 1. The State of Bihar has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order of 10 September, 2002 on C.W.J.C. No. 5944 of 2002 : M/s Senbo Engineering Limited V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. 2. It is not in issue that between the appellants and respondent M/s Senbo Engineering Limited there is a contract agreement for executing work for construction of Canal siphon at R.D.139.10 of Western Kosi Main Canal, across river Kamla at Bhakua, in the district of Madhubani. During course of construction a stage reached that the agent and assign of the State of Bihar seized the equipment of the petitioner respondent and detained it. It was at this juncture that a petition had been filed. 3. In the writ petition the defence was that the seizure which had been made was strictly in accordance with the agreement as the parties between them had agreed to certain conditions to entitle the State of Bihar to detain the equipment. It is also not in issue between the parties that the dispute between them are otherwise referable to arbitration if matters so arise on claims or damages whether liquidated or otherwise. 4. The writ application was allowed with a direction that the respondent no. 6, particularly, would release the seized equipment i.e. excavator-cum-pay loader to the petitioner respondent, forthwith. Thereafter, the learned Judge made an observation that the petitioner would extend the fullest cooperation in completing the project and would complete the project as early as possible. 5. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed, in effect, for two purposes as submitted (a) that the direction given by the learned Judge to release the equipment is irregular and against the agreement and (b) certain remarks have been passed against the officials as whatever they had done they had exercised their authority under the agreement itself. 6. Before filing of this appeal in so far as the equipment is concerned, that has been released to the petitioner respondent. This should have been the end of the matter. But the second aspect is pressed. 7. The Court has heard counsel for the parties and has perused the pleadings very carefully. If there was no occasion to make the observation, the Court would have no hesitation perhaps to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. This should have been the end of the matter. But the second aspect is pressed. 7. The Court has heard counsel for the parties and has perused the pleadings very carefully. If there was no occasion to make the observation, the Court would have no hesitation perhaps to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. But, unfortunately, with clearcut allegations made in the petition in so far as the counter affidavit is concerned which was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, parawise reply to the allegations made were deliberately avoided. It is a general counter affidavit. 8. In the circumstances, it will hardly be appropriate for this Court to interfere in this matter when the State respondents fully aware that there were allegations clearly avoided answering them. The appellant State of Bihar should treat this episode as a closed Chapter. 9. Dismissed.