JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The question whether T.D.S. should be deducted or should not be deducted from out of the payments made to the petitioner towards cost of G.R. will not rise in future because of the letter dated 27.08.2009 issued by the Ministry of Coal bearing No. 17022/4/2008-CRC in which it has been stated that future payments for G.R. should be made through a bank draft in favour of the PAO, Ministry of Coal. 3. This would mean that future payments will not be made to the petitioner towards cost of G.R. 4. So far as the earlier transactions are concerned, it appears from some of the documents that the petitioner unnecessarily wrote a letter to the Income Tax Authorities that deductions towards T.D.S. should not be made from the payments made to the petitioner towards cost of G.R. on the ground that the petitioner was a mere conduit and the money was transferred intact by the petitioner to the Ministry of Coal, Government of India. 5. We are not examining the factual situation. In case, assessment proceedings take place in which the receipts on that count are sought to be treated as income of the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to prove before the concerned Assessing Authority, including Appellate Authority, whether the said receipts did or did not form part of the income of the petitioner. 6. The observation made by the Director (Budget), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, in his letter dated 11.2.2009 issued to the Principal Officer of the petitioner, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-14, that the receipts form part of the income of the petitioner, have been made upon a representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the direction of the Orissa High Court in W.P. (C) No. 16268 of 2006. This representation was not a statutory representation and the decision on such representation was not in any statutory proceedings and, therefore, such observations will not be binding upon the Subordinate income Tax Authorities, who may come to their own conclusion, on the basis of the material furnished before the Assessing Authority, if any assessment proceeding takes place with regard to earlier transactions. 7. If the averment of the petitioner that the petitioner is merely a conduit, is correct, the real recipient of the payments is the Central Government. 7. If the averment of the petitioner that the petitioner is merely a conduit, is correct, the real recipient of the payments is the Central Government. In such a situation, if any T.D.S. has been wrongly or excessively deducted out of any such payments, it would be for the Central Government to feel aggrieved against the same and to claim refund of the same under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. 8. The petitioner can have no grievance in respect of such T.D.S. and consequently no locus to file this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, subject to the above observation, we decline to pass any further order in this writ application, which is disposed of. Application disposed of.