ORDER Respondents-appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 15668 of 2004, have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. While disposing of the writ application the learned Single Judge directed for payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the writ petitioner as cost. 3. By order dated 2.12.2008 notice was issued confined to the cost. 4 AC to AG submits that the writ petitioner had suffered on account of its own failure to comply the requirements for change of address in the certificate of registration. 5. We do not find any substance in this submission. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned Single Judge and it observed that the writ petitioner had complied with all requirements but the District Transport Officer, abusing his authority, did not make the change. This conclusion has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge on appraisal of material, which cannot be said to be illegal calling for interference in the appeal. 6. On its finding that the writ petitioner suffered being unable to ply his commercial vehicle for long years, the learned Judge compensated him by awarding cost of Rs.50,000/-. In this connection, he has observed as follows:– "As a consequence of the abuse of authority by the District Transport Officer, Bhagalpur, petitioner has suffered irreparable loss by being unable to ply his commercial vehicle for five long years. In my view, petitioner is entitled to be compensated by cost which I quantified at Rs. 50,000/-. The same shall be paid within a period of one month from the time the order is communicated to District Transport Officer, Bhagalpur and State would be at liberty to fix the responsibility of the officer concerned and realize the same from the officer, in question." 7. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of its power in Letters Patent Appeal ordinarily does not interfere with the order on quantum of cost, unless an exceptional case is made out. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not err in giving the aforesaid direction. 8. We are of the opinion that the case in hand is not one of the exceptional cases calling for interference in the appeal. 9. Appeal stands dismissed.