Order Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuing a direction to the respondents to refund the reserve jam a (security deposit) of Rs. 6,22,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner with the respondents for obtaining licence for ferrying ghats. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the amount was deposited in terms of the original understanding with the concerned authorities of the Department that licence for ferrying ghats would be given to the present petitioner. Subsequently, two rival societies also staked their claim and applied for licence for ferrying ghats. The dispute was referred to the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi by the order of this court passed in earlier writ application filed by the petitioner. The Registrar directed the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to resolve the dispute between the parties with certain guidelines. As per guidelines, it was decided that ghats should be equally distributed amongst the rival claimants namely the present petitioner and another cooperative society and total amount of security deposit of Rs. 14,60,000/- was divided proportionately amongst both the claimants and the amount which the petitioner was liable to deposit, was Rs. 6,22,0001-. Learned counsel explains that a fresh auction notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner declaring that licence to ferry ghats which was originally made for a period of one year i.e from 1st April, 2002 to March 2003, would be available for the remaining period of the financial year and would be effective from the date of issuance of Parwana/permission for ferrying ghats. Learned counsel explains further that the petitioner was not willing to accept the offer for ferrying ghats for the limited period and though he had initially participated in the auction bid, but he had backed out from the same on the ground that he is no more willing to continue with ferrying of ghats for a limited period only since he was not granted privilege of ferrying ghats for the entire financial year, although security money for the entire financial year was deposited. The petitioner thereafter demanded refund of his security deposit of Rs. 6,22,000/- but the same was refused and thereafter, petitioner moved this court by filing writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 5380 of 2002. The petitioner thereafter demanded refund of his security deposit of Rs. 6,22,000/- but the same was refused and thereafter, petitioner moved this court by filing writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 5380 of 2002. By disposing of the writ application by order dated 23.11.2002, a direction was given to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to consider the representation of the petitioner for refund of the amount since the petitioner was not willing to enter into an agreement for ferrying ghats for the limited period and to pass appropriate order upon petitioner's claim for refund, if the same is permissible. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner demanding refund of his security deposit but the same was refused by the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and it is against this impugned order, the present writ application have been filed for declaration that the impugned order is bad in law and. for issuance of direction to the respondents to refund the amount of security deposit to the petitioner. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Inviting attention to the contents of paragraphs-10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents explains that the amount of deposit is not liable to be refunded to the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner had availed the privilege of ferrying ghats pursuant to the settlement made and Parwana/permission granted to him and during the period of operation, petitioner had collected revenue by way of toll tax and, therefore, is not entitled to refund of security and this is the ground stated in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. 4. Counsel for the petitioner would controvert this argument by emphatically asserting that no permission was granted to the petitioner and as a matter of fact, the petitioner had to make written demand for grant of Parwana by a letter dated 19.6.2002, but in absence of any response to his letter and in absence of any permission granted, petitioner had no opportunity either to ferry ghats or to collect any revenue by way of to tax and the claim of the respondent-Deputy Commissioner is totally false and misleading. 5. It is apparent from the rival contentions of the parties that the dispute as would appear is a dispute of facts. 5. It is apparent from the rival contentions of the parties that the dispute as would appear is a dispute of facts. While petitioner claims that he was not granted permission for ferrying ghats, the respondent's claim is that Parwana/permission was in fact given to the petitioner and was received by one of its members and on he basis of which, the petitioner had enjoyed privilege of ferrying ghats and collected revenue. Since this court cannot enter into adjudication of the dispute relating to facts, it is appropriate therefore that the matter be referred by mutual consent of both parties, to the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka for deciding the issue raised on the basis of rival claims and contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. The Divisional Commissioner who shall dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of this order. Let this order be communicated to the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka. Both parties shall appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka within a period of one month from the date of this order.