ORDER : Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assisted by Mr. Saurav Shekhar, Advocate in both the cases. 2. Heard Mrs. Chandra Prabha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in both the cases. 3. This writ petition being W.P.(C). No.3558 of 2014 has been filed for the following relief: “For a direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the admitted amount of Rs. 12,39,445.00, which is lying with the department, in lieu of difference of amount, incurred by the petitioner in purchase of bitumen and even though the amount has been admitted, the same has not yet been paid, due to not non-availability of fund, while the work has already been completed in the financial year 2011-12, with a further prayer to direct the respondent authorities to release the said amount along with penal interest.” 4. This writ petition being W.P.(C). No.3610 of 2014 has been filed for the following relief: “for a direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the admitted amount of Rs.19,58,306.00, which is lying with the department, in lieu of difference of amount, incurred by the petitioner in purchase of bitumen and even though the amount has been admitted, the same has not yet been paid, due not non-availability of fund while the work has already been completed in March, 2013, with a further prayer to direct the respondent authorities to release the said amount along with penal interest.” 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that identical issues are involved in these two writ petitions and accordingly the same may be disposed of by a common order. 6. Counsel submits that the petitioners is admittedly governed by the Contract contained in Annexure – 1 to the writ petition read with letter No. 7182 (s) dated 12.11.2008 contained in Annexure – 2 to the writ petition being W.P.(C). No.3558 of 2014. He submits that his grievance is in connection with payment on account of bitumen utilized by the petitioners in the execution of the contract. No.3558 of 2014. He submits that his grievance is in connection with payment on account of bitumen utilized by the petitioners in the execution of the contract. He submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the respondent no.3 is directed to examine the claim of the petitioners at the first instance, on the basis of aforesaid Annexures - 1 and 2 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a reasoned order in connection with their claim and whatever is admitted by the respondents be paid to the petitioners within stipulated time frame. 7. Counsel for the respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioners are governed by aforesaid Annexures – 1 and 2. She has no objection if the matter is examined by the respondent no.3 at the first instance. However, she submits that claim of the petitioners has no merits. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further submits that an opportunity of hearing will be granted by the respondent no.3, who shall examine the claim after hearing the petitioners. 8. Considering the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served if the claims of the petitioners are examined by the respondent no.3 at the first instance. 9. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no.3 giving its claim in connection with the relief as prayed for in these writ petitions along with the copy of this order within a period of three months from today. 10. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent no.3 is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and is directed to pass a reasoned order within a period of three months thereafter. It is further observed that if anything is found payable to the petitioners, the same should be paid to the petitioners as early as possible. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claim of the petitioners.