WP(C) 1225/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Tanti, learned Standing Counsel, Inland Water Transport Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to pay @ 9% per annum in respect of the delayed payment of contractual bill. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Cou rt by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.3701/2009, by which the grievance wa s raised in respect of the bill in question. Mr. Barkataki, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in the sai d writ petition, there was no prayer for payment of interest on delayed payment. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 10.9.2009 by directing the Res pondent No.1 to examine the petitioner’s case with regard to non-payment of petitioner’s dues and then, to pay admissible amount in the event of finding tha t such payment was admissible to the petitioner. In the said order, there was no direction to examine the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest. Moreo ver, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was also no p rayer for payment of interest. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to accept the prayer o f the petitioner for payment of interest. Consequently, the writ petition is dis missed. However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the petit ioner to approach the civil Court, if so advised, which, however, will be subjec t to admissibility in law.