JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. these petitions being WP(C) No. 88 of 2017 [Sri Suvajit Paul v. FCI & Ors.], WP(C) No. 89 of 2017 [Sri Suvajit Paul v. FCI & Ors.], WP(C) No. 90 of 2017 [Sri Suvajit Paul v. FCI & Ors.], WP(C) No. 91 of 2017 [Sri Abhijit Paul v. FCI & Ors.], WP(C) No. 92 of 2017 [Sri Abhijit Paul v. FCI & Ors.] and WP(C) No. 93 of 2017 [Sri Abhijit Paul v. FCI & Ors.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the controversy is structured on facts which are resembling. 3. That apart, it has been claimed by the petitioners these writ petitions are covered by the decisions of this Court in Suvajit Paul v. Food Corporation of India & 2 Ors [the common judgment and order dated 04.12.2015 in WP(C) No. 503 of 2012] Food Corporation of India & two others v. Suvajit Paul common judgment and order dated 03.10.2016 delivered in WA No. 25 of 2016 etc and the [the common judgment and order dated 29.08.2017 delivered in WA No. 18 of 2017 etc.] 4. There is no dispute that the petitioners in all these writ petitions were awarded transport contracts for 2 years for transportation of food grains/allied materials from Railway siding/FSD Dharmanagar to various warehouses of the FCI situated at Agartala and in order to execute the work order, the petitioners admittedly tendered security deposits. The said security deposit was supposed to be released on completion of transportation in terms of the work order. But the respondents on completion of transportation and even after issuing no-demand certificates did not release the security deposit. And hence, the petitioners have urged this Court for directing the respondents to release the said security deposit with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the payment is made. 5. The respondents by filing the reply have stated that the said security deposits have been set off against the losses suffered by the respondents in the shape of demurrage due to the failure and negligence of the petitioners. Thus, there is no question of the refunding the security deposit. 5. The respondents by filing the reply have stated that the said security deposits have been set off against the losses suffered by the respondents in the shape of demurrage due to the failure and negligence of the petitioners. Thus, there is no question of the refunding the security deposit. Further, it has been stated that in terms of the Clause-IX(C) of the Tender Agreement, the corporation is not liable to pay any interest on the security deposit. 6. The respondents have raised objection that the petitioners have approached this Court, without exhausting the alternative forum as provided under Clause-XX of the agreement, which reads as under: “Laws governing the contract and the dispute resolution which states as in case of any disputes arising out of and touching upon the contract the same will be first referred to the dispute/grievance redressal committee constituted and functioning at the Zonal Office of the Corporation, with a view to settle the disputes. If any disputes remain thereafter, the same will be settled in the court of law having competent jurisdiction.” 7. For purpose of reference, in the form of a table the name of the writ petitioners, the work order number, the amount of security deposits and whether no-demand certificate has been issued, are provided hereunder: Name of the writ petitioner Writ petition No. Work order No. The amount of the security deposit Whether no demand certificate has been issued by the respondents Sri Suvajit Paul WP(C) No. 88 of 2017 Cont.9/NEFR/TC/DMR­NDN/2011 dated 25.04.2012 14,50,000/­ Yes Sri Suvajit Paul WP(C) No. 89 of 2017 Cont.9/NEFR/TC/CBZ­HPNA/2011 dated 25.04.2012 11,40,000/- Yes Sri Suvajit Paul WP(C) No. 90 of 2017 Cont.9/NEFR/TC/DMR­ADN/2011 dated 30.04.2012 8,65,000/­ Yes Sri Abhijit Paul WP(C) No. 91 of 2017 Cont.9/NEFR/CBZ-DN/2011 dated 25.04.2012 22,70,000/- Yes Sri Abhijit Paul WP(C) No. 92 of 2017 Cont.9/NEFR/CBZ­CDR/2011 dated 25.04.2012 44,95,000/- Yes Sri Abhijit Paul WP(C) No. 93 of 2017 Cont.9/NEFR/CBZ­ADN/2011 dated 25.04.2012 16,70,000/- Yes 8. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that earlier in the contract there used to be a clause on liability of contractor for losses etc suffered by the corporation. The said clause was as under: “XII LIABILITY OF CONTRACTORS FOR LOSSES, ETC., SUFFERED BY CORPORATION. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that earlier in the contract there used to be a clause on liability of contractor for losses etc suffered by the corporation. The said clause was as under: “XII LIABILITY OF CONTRACTORS FOR LOSSES, ETC., SUFFERED BY CORPORATION. (a) The contractors shall be liable for all cost, damages, demurrages wharfages, for failure of wagons, registrations fees, charges and expenses suffered or incurred by the Corporation due to the contractors negligence and un-workmanlike performances of any services under this contract, or breach of any terms thereof or their failure to carry out the work with a view to avoid incurrence of demurrages, etc., and for all damages or losses occasioned to the Corporation or in particulars to any property or plant belonging to the corporation due to any act whether negligence or otherwise of the contractors themselves or other employees. The decision of the Sr. Regional Manager regarding such failure of the contractors and their liability for the losses, etc., suffered by corporation shall be final and binding on the contractors.” But subsequently, the said clause has been removed from the contract and as such the Food Corporation of India does not have any authority provided by the contract to deduct any amount in terms of the demurrage. 9. In the new Clauses-X and XII of the contract which subsists between the writ petitioners and the respondent-corporation, the terms ‘demurrage’ is not anywhere. The recovery of losses suffered by the corporation for which deduction can be made is in respect of any damages, losses, charges, costs or expenses suffered or incurred by them, or any amount payable by the contractor as liquidated damages as provided for in Clause-XII. Clause-X of the agreement does not also speak for demurrage and is again confined to costs. 10. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in Food Corporation of India and two others v. Suvajit Paul, it has been held by this Court as follows: “In our opinion, when the new agreement executed by the appellant with the writ petitioner has clearly excluded the expression “demurrage” either in Clause-XII(a) or Clause-X(a) thereof, we do not see how this term can be read into it by a process of interpretation. In other words, this Court cannot read into or imply the term or expression which has been deliberately obliterated in the said agreement. In the view that we have taken, we do not think that the learned Single Judge has committed any infirmity in making the impugned observation made in para-8 of the judgment.” 11. Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the liquidated damages have been set off in terms of the new clause. However, he has fairly admitted that for that purpose, the corporation-respondents have themselves acted like adjudicators. 12. Having appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that similar issue was dealt with by this Court holding that if it is found that the respondents have suffered for failure and negligence of the petitioners that they may recover following the appropriate procedure as laid down in law. As there is no clause for recovering the demurrage in the agreement under which the petitioners were operating the transportation of the food grains etc. This observation of this Court has been reproduced in para-9 of the reply filed by the respondents. 13. The said observation has made it abundantly clear that even in order to recover the liquidated damages, the respondents are to take recourse at law. That plainly implies that the respondents are to file a suit for getting their damages ascertained and assessed by the civil court of the competent jurisdiction. 14. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that under Clause-IX (c) it has been clearly provided that on completion of norms by the contractor under the terms of contract and on submission of no-demand certificate, subject to such deduction from the security as is permissible for recovering the corporation’s claims against the contractor, the corporation will be liable for payment of any interest of the security deposit. 15. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed adequate emphasis on the said clause and also contended that under Clause-XII, the corporation has right to reimburse or recover any damage, losses, charges, costs or expenses suffered or incurred by them or any amount payable by the contractors as liquidated damages as provided in Clause-X of the contract. 16. As it is already stated, that the corporation-respondent has already issued no-demand certificate in favour of the petitioners. 16. As it is already stated, that the corporation-respondent has already issued no-demand certificate in favour of the petitioners. Even thereafter, they have not released the security deposits. On the contrary, they have claimed that the said security deposit has been set off against their claim. The corporation-respondent does not have any authority to set off their claim unilaterally when the contract under reference did not provide such authority to the corporation-respondent. 17. Having observed thus, the corporation-respondents are directed to release the security deposits of the writ petitioners within a period of three months from the date when the petitioners shall submit a copy of this order to the corporation-respondent. Failure in making payment as aforesaid within the time as stipulated, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date when the petitioners had received the no-demand certificate from the respondents. In terms of the above, these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.