JUDGEMENT Navin Sinha and Dinesh Kumar Singh JJ. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General No. 3 on behalf of the State. 2. The issue involved is with regard to the liability for payment of commercial tax by the petitioners for the spirit supplied by them to Government Warehouses prior to the date 1.4.1989 and which spirit was then supplied by the State Government Warehouses to manufacturers of countrymade liquor. 3. From the records of the writ petition it appears that earlier the Commercial Taxes Department accepted the contention of the petitioners with regard to absence of any liability for payment of commercial taxes prior to 1.4.1989, in light of certain letters of the Excise Department, Government of Bihar. Subsequently, the order granting exemption has been revised imposing liability for the period prior to 1.4.1989 also. 4. It is apparent that the controversy arises in the background of a stand off between the Excise Department and the Commercial Taxes Department of the State Government. A counter affidavit stated to be filed on behalf of the respondent Excise Department. It further appears that a copy of another counter affidavit on behalf of the Assistant Commercial Taxes was served on the counsel for the petitioners is a rejoinder to the same is on record. However, no counter affidavit of the commercial taxes appears to have been filed before the Court as none is available on record. 5. Quite apparently the two departments namely, the Excise Department and the Commercial Tax Department appear to be having their own view on the issue at variance with each other. It is incongruous that they represented by one State counsel. 6. Learned Advocate General No. 3 very fairly submits that in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court that inter- department wrangling should not be allowed to be generated as litigation burdening the Court. The State Government has now constituted a committee chaired by the Chief Secretary of the State consisting of other senior functionaries of the State Government to look into such inter-departmental controversy. 7. We consider it appropriate to direct that the issue be referred to the aforesaid committee. The State Government has now constituted a committee chaired by the Chief Secretary of the State consisting of other senior functionaries of the State Government to look into such inter-departmental controversy. 7. We consider it appropriate to direct that the issue be referred to the aforesaid committee. It shall provide due representative hearing to the petitioners also and then pass a reasoned and speaking order facilitating judicial review, should the need arise, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before the Chief Secretary of the State. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order of restraint granted on 25.4.1996 shall continue to operate till disposal of the matter by the committee. 9. The writ applications stand disposed. I.A. No. 1718 of 2002 10. I.A. application has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 9210 of 1989. The grievance is that payment for the spirit supplied to the Warehouses of the State Government by the intervenor i.e. U.B. Distilleries Ltd. has not been paid. The records reveal that the demand drafts furnished had lapsed and were given for revalidation. From the records it appears that in pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 30.8.2001, the demand drafts were deposited in the Accounts Section of this Court and on expiration were revalidated also. On 6.8.2001, this Court noticed that payment as due on that date shall carry interest at 10%. We therefore make it clear that the amount of interest shall cease on the date that the demand drafts were first deposited before this Court. 11. If the matter has remained pending before the Court, the State cannot be saddled with additional liability of interest. 12. This matter is in similar terms also referred to the committee of the State Government chaired by the Chief Secretary when it is expected that appropriate direction for the legitimate dues to be paid forthwith to the intervenor, shall be considered and directed by the committee also within the same period. 13. The I.A. application stands disposed.