C.W.P. No.19743 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19743 of 2010 Date of Decision.07.09.2011 M/s Rattan and Rattan Associates (a Proprietorship firm) Mohali, 410, Phase-7, Mohali through its attorney Sh. Gian Chand Aggarwal, r/o House No.106, Phase-7, Mohali .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Principal Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Naresh Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The only point urged in the writ petition is the entitlement to the interest for payment made belatedly for the work done earlier. The petitioner was a contractor of certified work for the Municipal Council, which is now since become Municipal Corporation. For the work, which was completed in the year 1997 and certified as such, the amount payable to the Contractor was admittedly Rs.1,16,863/-. The amount was delayed deliberately, according to the petitioner, in view of the fact that he had registered a FIR against some of the officials in the Municipal Corporation for alleged demand of bribe. On an earlier contract as well, the petitioner had to resort to action through Court for C.W.P. No.19743 of 2010 -2- recovery of the amount and this Court had granted the recoveries with interest @18%. The contention is that the delay was made by the respondent only to spite the petitioner for vindicating his rights and it was not justified at all. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that for any delay in carrying out the project under the contract, the provision for damage that was stipulated under contract was that the contractor shall become liable to pay @1% of the value of the work that remained for every day. Though the petitioner would not ask for interest at the same rate, he refers to this as how the respondent treats any breach as giving a right to demand hefty damages and the respondent could not be lax on its own obligations. The explanation given by the respondents in this case for the delay is that in respect of yet another claim by the same petitioner, he had resorted to an action in C.W.P. No.4966 of 1998 and when the amount was not paid within time, the Court had ordered 18% interest. At that time it was represented by the petitioner that in yet another transaction also(meaning the transaction relating to the present writ petition), there had been still unsatisfied claim. The Court had observed that it would be worked out in independent proceedings. This order was passed by the Bench on 27.08.1998 but the petitioner had never made any demands on the respondents all along but he had made the demand only in the year 2008 and the amount was paid within the reasonable time. I cannot accept this explanation as tenable at all, for a contract which is completed and which is governed by contractual terms cannot wait for somebody to make a demand. It shows complete lack of sensitivity to the duties and obligations by Authorities of the C.W.P. No.19743 of 2010 -3- Municipal Corporation. I find no logic in the defence and would hold that the petitioner is entitled to interest @18% on the amount paid at Rs.1,16,683/- from 14.03.1997 till date. The amount shall be released within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3. The writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/-. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 07, 2011 Pankaj*