JUDGMENT 2. Heard Sri B. C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had carried out certain work contract for the respondents and is entitled to refund of GST @ 18%, however, refund has been granted @ 12%. He submits that he has preferred a representation before the Respondent No.7. He further submits that purpose of filing of the present writ petition shall stand served if the petitioner is permitted to approach the Respondent No.7 by way of appropriate representation, which may be directed to be decided within time frame fixed by this Court. 4. Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that in the eventuality the petitioner files a representation the same shall be duly considered by the Respondent No.7. 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending and, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to approach the Respondent No.7 by filing an appropriate representation clearly stating his grievance within a period of two weeks from today. In the eventuality, the petitioner files representation within time allowed, it is expected that the Respondent No.7 shall proceed to consider all aspects of the matter and decide the same by speaking and reasoned order, expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.