JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) : Learned counsel, Mr. R. Dutta for the petitioner is present. No representation on behalf of other respondents. 2. On the last occasion i.e. on 06.01.2017 this Court passed the following order: “List this matter on 10.02.2017. In the meanwhile the respondents may file their reply, if any. It is made clear that no further accommodation would be made for filing the reply, if any. It is made clear that no further accommodation would be made for filing the reply. Mr. A.K.Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Banik, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.” 3. In view of the above order, learned counsel, Mr. R. Dutta prays for taking up the writ petitions for final disposal at the admission stage itself since the respondents neither submitted any counter affidavit nor made any prayer for adjournment. 4. He has also prayed for taking up all the four writ petitions together since identical fact and question of law involved. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta that the petitioners were transport contractors and under specific agreement they were awarded transport works for which they had to make security deposits. 6. Petitioner of WP(C) No.1092 of 2016 was appointed as Transport Contractor vide tender No.Cont.9/NEFR/TC/ADHOC/CBZCDR/2014/2574, dated 09.07.2014 and he deposited an amount of Rs.21,64,500/as security deposits and in WP(C) No.1093 of 2016 the petitioner was appointed as Transport Contractor vide tender No.Cont.9/ NEFR/ TC/ ADHOC/CBZ – AND/2014/2582, dated 09.07.2014 and deposited an amount of Rs.9,81,750/as security deposits. Petitioner of WP(C) 1094 of 2016 was appointed as Transport Contractor vide tender No. Cont.9/NEFR/TC/ADHOC/ DMRADN/2014, dated 28.06.2014 and he deposited an amount of Rs.7,78,500/as security deposits and in WP(C) 1095 of 2016 the petitioner was appointed as Transport Contractor vide tender No.Cont.9/NEFR/TC/ADHOC/DMRNDN/2014, dated 28.06.2014 and deposited an amount of Rs.4,85,555/as security deposit. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that the work has been completed and the petitioners submitted No Demand Certificate but even thereafter the security deposits have not been released. A Copy of the No Demand Certificate by the petitioners has been annexed as Annexure2 in the respective writ petitions. 8. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondents did not refund the amount which the petitioners deposited as security deposits. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for directing the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners as security deposits. 9. 8. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondents did not refund the amount which the petitioners deposited as security deposits. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for directing the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners as security deposits. 9. Since the respondents did not oppose the prayer of the petitioners and since the documents show that the security deposits made by the petitioners have not been refunded, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the respective security deposits of the petitioners within 45 days from today. 10. All the writ petitions, accordingly stands disposed of.