Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The controversy sought, but, at the same time, a far reaching consequence because of the reason that in a case where the petitioner preferred a writ petition against the termination of the agreement entered into with it by the Transport Department of Government of Jharkhand for supply and affixing of High Security Registration Plates, the petitioner's application for interim relief, I.A. No.2701 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.9.2012. Against this order dated 25.9.2012, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No.424 of 2012 wherein the petitioner appellant's contention was that his prayer for safeguarding the interest of the petitioner-appellant was not considered by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court (us) observed that from the impugned order it is not clear that such argument was raised, or if raised, that facts and position can be clarified only in review jurisdiction. Observing so, the petitioner-appellant's L.P.A. No.424 of 2012 was dismissed vide order dated 8.10.2012. The petitioner-appellant challenged the above said orders dated 25.9.2012 and 8.10.2012 by preferring S.L.P. (