IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1616 of 2009 KRISHNA MURARI BHARTIA son of Shanker Prasad Bhartia, resident of village – Kot Bazar, Police Station and District- Sitamarhi ........ appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply( now known as food and Consumer Protection Department), Bihar , Patna 2. The Collector, Sitamarhi ...........respondents ----------- 3 12-01-2010 I.A. no. 855/2009. This is an application for condonation of delay of 11 days in preferring the appeal. Having heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and upon perusal of the assertion in the application the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. I.A. stands allowed. LPA no. 1616/2009 As we have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, we are inclined to take the appeal for admission. Admit. 2 On consent of the parties, it is finally disposed of. The present litigation, as the factual scenario get gradually uncurtained, would show that it has a chequered history. The appellant approached this court for the first time in CWJC no. 9153/2007 which was disposed of on 31-7-2008 with a direction to take a final decision in the matter after consulting the concerned authorities and ensure that payment is made to the appellant from whatever sources within a period of six weeks. The matter was listed on 12-9-2008 and on that date a cheque of Rs. 1,60,566.64 /- was handed over to the appellant. The writ court at that juncture directed the appellant to submit a representation for grant of interest before the 1st respondent namely, the Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply (presently known as Food and Consumer Protection Department). After representation was submitted claiming interest the competent authority rejected the representation on the ground that the writ petitioner had not submitted an application for payment of due either 3 before the department or before the Food Corporation of India and had directly approached the court. Being dissatisfied with the said order the writ petitioner visited this court in CWJC no. 5402/2009 and this court by order dated 28-04-2009 set aside the order dated 01-04- 2009 and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Secretary taking into account the prevailing bank rates of interest for that period and award interest accordingly. Be it noted that learned Single Judge at that point of time had observed that interest would be paid if the Secretary comes to the conclusion that writ petitioner had not deprived of payment for no fault of his. As the factual projection would reveal the 1st respondent considered the claim for interest and rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the said order CWJC no. 13343/2009 came to be preferred which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 28-04-2009. Learned Single Judge after referring to the earlier orders has expressed the view as follows:- “Learned counsel representing the State submits that the issue was referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned to consider the matter on the given facts and the parameters. He submits that the Secretary has 4 rightly held that the State has no responsibility as there was never any delay in their conduct with regard to the transaction in question. Admitted position is that the payments have to be made either by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation or Food Corporation of India, as the case may be, if at all, but at no point of time they were made a party in the writ application. Liability, if at all, is that of the Corporation, is being placed on the head of the State. The court has gone through the order contained in Annexure-7, this fact has been noted by the learned Single Judge in his order but he has disposed of the writ application by giving a direction to the Secretary to look into the matter. The Secretary has passed an order denying the liability and responsibility of the Department or the State. He cannot fix responsibility upon others who were neither before the Court nor before him. If that be so then the reasoning assigned by the Secretary cannot be said to be erroneous”. Assailing the legal propriety of the aforesaid order it is submitted by Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant that when there was a command by this court to grant interest as there was enormous delay in payment of the same, it was imperative on the part of respondent no.1 to pay interest. On the other hand Mr. P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the State propounded that there was no direction for payment of interest and when the State 5 Government was unable to fix the liability it could not have mulcted the interest liability either on the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation or Food Corporation of India. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of orders passed by this court from time to time we are of the considered opinion it is difficult to hold that there was a command at any point of time to extend the benefit of interest. There have been observations with regard to factum of delay and to take a decision whether the delay had been caused due to the fault of the State or fault of the writ petitioner. As is evident from the order passed by the competent authority which has been concurred with by learned Single Judge that State has not admitted its fault and in fact it has expressed the view that there may be some kind of laches by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation or Food Corporation of India. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the State could not have fastened the liability on the other authorities cannot be faulted. In view of such factual imbroglio, it is 6 difficult to direct the State Government to pay the interest. The appellant, in law, may be entitled to interest for the delayed payment but the said liability cannot be fastened on the State. However, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is granted to the appellant to initiate any other action for realizing interest from the appropriate parties as per law. We may observe herein that we have not expressed any opinion about the merits of the case and in case any action is instituted, the same shall be dealt with within the parameters of law. With the aforesaid observation, the Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. BKS/- (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)