JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the letter dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure-9) of the respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.1,28,708.00. The petitioner was a transport contractor and he was given Work-Order by the respondents for the transportation of the cylinders for the period from 01.04.2002 to 30.04.2003. The contractor's work for the subsequent period could not be finalized, therefore, the petitioner requested the respondents to permit him on ad-hoc basis to operate Packed Transport Contract effective from 01.05.2003 up-to six-months on the same terms and conditions, except transportation rates, which shall be finalised in the new Packed Transport Contract and shall be acceptable to him. The petitioner worked up-to to 31.12.2003. 3. It appears that subsequently the transport contract rates were reduced and the petitioner was bound by the new transport rates, as agreed by him vide its letter dated 21.04.2003. In these circumstances, the respondents demanded the difference of the amount from the petitioner, as per the new and old rates of the contract. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rates of transport contract was not finalised during the period from 01.05.2003 to 31.12.2003, therefore, he is not bound by the new rates and he is entitled to get his payment, as per old rates itself. The another submission is that the impugned order dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure-9) has been issued without notice to the petitioner, therefore, it is a violative of the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the term of the petitioner's contract expired on 30.04.2003 and he himself wrote a letter and gave an undertaking to the respondents to operate the aforesaid Packed Transport Contract on ad-hoc basis on the same terms and conditions, except transportation rates, which shall be finalised in the new Packed Transport Contract and shall be acceptable to him from 01.05.2003 up-to six-months, therefore, he is bound by his own undertaking and he cannot question the validity of the impugned order/letter issued by the respondents, which is nothing, except asking the petitioner to pay the difference of the amount of rates, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He further contended that so far as the violation of the principles of natural justice is concerned, the said principle is not attracted in the present case, as the order dated 24.11.2003 (annexure-9) is nothing, except asking the petitioner to pay the difference of amount of the new and old rates, for which the petitioner was agreeable and he is bound to refund the same. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders, writ petition, reply and documents annexed therewith. 7. It appears that the transport contract of the petitioner expired on 30.04.2003, and thereafter he himself vide letter dated 21.04.2003 requested the respondents to permit him on ad-hoc basis to operate the Packed Transport Contract, after the expiry of contract at the same terms and conditions, except the transportation rates, which were to be finalised in the new Packed Transport Contract. The petitioner agreed that whatever rate is finalised will be acceptable to him. 8. The letter/undertaking of the petitioner, is reproduced, as under:- To, The Sr. Plant Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division) Indane Bottling Plant Beechwal, Bikaner (Raj.) 334 001. Dear Sir, 1. I, Rajwant Singh, Power of attorney holder of M/s. Victory Gas Service are existing transporter for packed LPG ex. Bikaner Plant as per Work Order No.RSO/LPG/ PT/P/ BKN/ 99/4.DT.28-29/04/2000. 2.Our Following TTs are in contract. Sepa Rate List Attached. 3.Since above contract is expiring on 30.04.2003 and new contract is in the process of being finalized. We may be permitted on ADHOC basis to operate our aforesaid TTs after the expiry of contract at the same terms and conditions, except transportation rated which shall be as finalised in the new PT and shall be acceptable to us from 01.05.2003 upto 6 months, thereafter or till finalisation of new contract which ever is earlier. 4.We agree that our payment for the above said period which is not covered under existing contract shall be made at the rates finalised under new PT and we shall for the time being claim only existing rates till new PT is finalized. 5.We identify IOC against all such losses, which may arise during execution of transportation work after expiry of existing contract due to any reason what soever and as mentioned in our old agreement. Witness : Signature Address Location In-charge. 5.We identify IOC against all such losses, which may arise during execution of transportation work after expiry of existing contract due to any reason what soever and as mentioned in our old agreement. Witness : Signature Address Location In-charge. Yours faithfully M/s. Victory Gas Service (Rajwant Singh) Power of Attorney 9. The aforesaid undertaking clearly reveals that it was the petitioner, who agreed for the transportation rates, as per the new Packed Transport Contract and he specifically mentioned that it will be acceptable to him. The respondents have already recovered the difference of the amount to the tune of Rs.2,68,106/-, as mentioned in the letter dated 30.04.2004 (annexure-7) and for the remaining amount of Rs.1,28,708/-, the impugned letter dated 24.11.2004(annexure-9) has been issued to the petitioner. 10. It appears that the issuance of the letter dated 24.11.2004 is nothing, except the recovery of balance of difference amount of the old and new rates, and I do not find any violation of the principles of natural justice while issuing the same in this regard. 11. It is not a case of the petitioner that the more amount, than the difference amount, is going to be recovered from him, if that is the position then, it will be open for the petitioner to make a representation before the respondents for the correct amount of difference of the old and new rates of the contract and the same will be considered by the respondents. 12. In view of above, I do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner 13. The writ petition, being devoid of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal petition dismissed. *******