Satyeshwar Roy and S.N.Jha JJ.

1. In both the cases the petitioners have asserted that they have supplied pesticides to respondent No. 2 who had placed order of supply as per order of the Cane Commissioner. It has been further asserted that the Cane Commissioner has paid the amount to respondent No. 2 for payment to the petitioners but the payment of the price of pesticides has not been made.

2. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since they have supplied pesticides to respondent No. 2 and as that has been consumed by respondent No. 2, it is bound to pay the price to the petitioners. It has also been urged that in some cases respondent No. 2 has paid the price but so far the petitioners are concerned, they have been discriminated.

3. When we observed that the claim of the petitioners was pure and simple money claim, being the price of pesticides alleged to have been supplied by them to respondent No. 2 under an agreement, it was submitted that in similar facts, this Court in Messrs Dumraon Industries Private Limited and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1991 (1) PLJR 533 : and C.W.J.C. No. 8858 of 1988, disposed of on 23-5-1989, directed the State to pay