JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, learned A.C. to G.A. V appearing for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner for direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 3,30,817/- which pursuant to some work decided to be done by the department itself. The contractors profit in the form of royalty was to be deducted from the Advance money and the concerned Junior Engineer’s were to refund the same to the Assistant Engineer, who upon entering the same in his Cash book were to deposit it to the Govt. treasury. It is alleged that the petitioner had also paid certain advance for construction of the road. After completing the work petitioner submitted the bills which had been passed and accepted. Petitioner had also bona fidely returned the royalty amount to the respondent no. 6 who entered the same in the cash book but with ulterior motives he did not deposit the same in the Govt. Treasury. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide Annexure-4, to the writ petition the Chief Engineer vide its letter dated 03.01.2007 ordered to waive the amount wrongly being shown in the name of the petitioner and to recover the same and adjust from the one Shailendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer respondent no. 6 of the writ petition. It is further submitted that Shailendra Kumar, Asistant Engineer i.e. respondent no. 6 noticed by this Court but he has not come forward with any affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the amount in question has been deposited as there was threat to the petitioner and under the coercion the petitioner has deposited the amount. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the State submits that the fact regarding retention of government money could not be placed properly before the Chief Engineer as a result of which it was inadvertently concluded that the petitioner had deposited the money. The Chief Engineer was misrepresented by the petitioner and the relevant facts were suppressed before him. He further submits that again the Chief Engineer is requested to go through the accounting procedure, and reconsider the matter and issue necessary order in this regard vide his letter no. 57 dated 15.01.2007. The Chief Engineer was misrepresented by the petitioner and the relevant facts were suppressed before him. He further submits that again the Chief Engineer is requested to go through the accounting procedure, and reconsider the matter and issue necessary order in this regard vide his letter no. 57 dated 15.01.2007. However, in the counter affidavit it is admitted that the amount of Rs. 3,30,817.84 has been returned back by the petitioner after lapse of more than 5 to 6 years. Thus it is apparent that the amount, in question, has returned back it may be after more than 5 to 6 years. 4. Be that as it may, in view of the stand taken by the State that by misrepresenting, the then Chief Engineer, passed the order of refund. The submission of the petitioner is that he had deposited the amount on coercion, this Court will not enter into this to decide the disputed question of fact. Moreover, the respondent no. 6 in spite of the notice has not come forward before this Court by way of filing any affidavit. In that view of the matter, let the matter be reemitted back to the respondent no. 3 to look into the Annexure-4 relied by the petitioner that he has deposited the amount under coercion and the amount has not been returned back to the petitioner as yet whereas it is considered in the counter-affidavit that the amount, in question, has been deposited by the petitioner in the department. Taking into account these facts, the respondent no. 3 is directed to pass speaking order as to whether the amount, in question, is refundable to the petitioner or not. The respondent shall take decision in this regard within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.