IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.338 of 2010 Bijay Kumar Gupta, son of Late Ram Pratap Sah, Proprietor of M/S Jai Hanuman Tent and Light House, resident of Mohalla- Ward No.23, Madhepura, P.S. and Disrict- Madhepura. ….. Petitioner….Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through its Finance Secretary, Deptt. of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Collector, Madhepura. 3. The Treasury Officer, Madhepura. ….Respondent…. Respondents. ----------- 02- 28.02.2011 Heard Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta for the appellant, and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.16. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.3288 of 2006, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 12.1.2010, whereby the writ petition was allowed, without any direction for payment of interest on the admitted dues of the writ petitioner. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The appellant deals in the business of lending Shamiana, Kanat, tent, generator set, table set etc. The District Magistrate of Madhepura had hired such articles 2 from the appellant for the period 6.4.1995 to 31.5.1995, and bill(s) for Rs.3,81,161/- were submitted on 31.10.1995, but payments were not made leading to the writ petition. The respondents filed a counter affidavit which was amazingly frank and candid, not an usual feature with the Bihar Government, whereby the dues were whole-heartedly admitted. The counter affidavit proceeded to state that the payments could not be made to the appellant because of paucity of funds. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed by the aforesaid order dated 12.1.2010, and direction was issued to the District Magistrate of Madhepura to make payment of the dues. Learned counsel for the appellant informs us that the admitted dues have been paid towards the end of 2010, but submits that the appellant is entitled to interest. 3. A similar issue fell for the consideration of one of us (S.K. Katriar, J.), sitting singly in the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others [2000 (2) P.L.J.R. 173], which has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in his order. The facts were substantially identical. The petitioner of that case had also erected podium and barricades on emergency basis on the occasion of the Chief Minister’s visit. The dues were 3 admitted at the hands of the authorities but the payment was not made on account of paucity of funds. That writ petition was allowed by order dated 15.2.2000 with interest at the rate of 25% with effect from the date on which the podium and barricades were erected till the date of payment, along with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- 4. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge in the present case erred in failing to grant interest at the appropriate rate to the appellant in a situation where services were rendered by the appellant way back in April and May 1995 and the payments have been made towards the end of 2010, obviously in compliance of the order on the writ petition. The respondent authorities had not taken the opportunity to make payment of the dues during the pendency of the writ proceedings. The State Government needed 15 years and order of this Court to find funds to make payment of the admitted dues. The authorities harassed the petitioner no end, and burdened this Court with most needless litigations. The respondent authorities ought to have realized that the appellant’s business is his source of livelihood, and failure to make payment in time would cause extraordinary harassment to him and, is a negation of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution, and 4 possibly Article 21 also. In such a situation, the appellant is undoubtedly entitled to interest at the rate of 25% and costs. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 25% on the sum of Rs.3,81,161/- with effect from 1.6.1995 till December 2010. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs of litigation in this Court quantified at Rs.5,00,000 (five lacs), which shall carry interest at the rate of 25% from 1.4.2011 till the date of payment. (S K Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/