ORDER Rajesh Shankar, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the payment due to the petitioner for the works completed by it in pursuance to letter of acceptance dated 13.05.2013 and work order dated 14.06.2013, since the work has already been completed by the petitioner within time and the maintenance period has also got over in November, 2016 itself. It has further been prayed for release of security deposit of the petitioner deducted @ 15% from the running bills. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Notice Inviting Tender as contained in Reference No. BCCL/CED/TC/NIT30/2012-13/506 was issued on 20.08.2012 for repair of 436 units residential quarters, 300 units NHS quarters at Muraidih Colony, 52 units quarters at RHB Colony and 84 units Mines quarters at Dugdha as well as Damoda Colony on non-coal bearing land in Barora Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BCCL"). The petitioner being the successful tenderer was issued letter of acceptance for execution of said work on 13.05.2013 and on 14.06.2013, the work order was issued to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said work was commenced by the petitioner on 23.05.2013 and completed on 22.05.2016 i.e., within a specified period as per the terms of contract. After completion of the work, a certificate was also issued to the petitioner by a team of officers of the respondent - BCCL vide Certificate No. 3852 dated 21.02.2017 with regard to its successfully completing the said work. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite successfully completing the work within the specified period in terms of the contract, due payment of the petitioner has been withheld by the respondent - BCCL. Though the part payment for execution of the said work was made to the petitioner, yet the rest of the legitimate dues have not yet been paid by the respondent - BCCL. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to a "noting-sheet for revenue" submits that as per the said note-sheet, the General Manager of the concerned area has already recommended the higher authorities of the BCCL for approval of Rs. 57,43,879.03 for payment of the due amount to the petitioner with regard to the work in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to a "noting-sheet for revenue" submits that as per the said note-sheet, the General Manager of the concerned area has already recommended the higher authorities of the BCCL for approval of Rs. 57,43,879.03 for payment of the due amount to the petitioner with regard to the work in question. The Area Civil Engineer of Barora Area also issued a letter contained in letter no. 52/1683 dated 1617/11/2017 seeking various information including the registration of the petitioner under the GST Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the awarded work to the petitioner was prior to coming into force of the GST Act, the petitioner is not required to submit GST registration for the period of work in question. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent - BCCL submits that the claim raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition for the work in question is required to be factually verified by the competent authorities of the respondent - BCCL. The learned counsel for the respondent - BCCL further submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation setting out his claim with regard to the work in question, the competent authority of the BCCL will take suitable decision on the said claim of the petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent -BCCL, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation setting out his claim in detail with regard to the work in question. On receipt of the said representation, the competent authority of the BCCL shall take decision with regard to the said claim of the petitioner after calling for the relevant records and providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/its representative. The said decision on the representation of the petitioner shall be taken within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.