IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11774 of 2006 Ashok Kumar Verma, son of Sri Ish Chandra Verma, resident of village Bhagwanpur, Anchal and P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Director Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. District Welfare Officer, Kaimur, Bhabhua. 5. S.D.O, Bhabhua, P.O.-Bhabhua, District-Kaimur. 6. C.O. Bhabhua, P.O.-Bhabhua, District-Kaimur. 7. Superintendent Welfare Hostel for Scheduled Caste Bhagawanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur ----------- 4. 28.11.2011 It is pointed out that in the order dated 3.11.2011 instead of the date being 1.8.1999, inadvertently it has been typed as 1.8.1989. Upon going through the pleadings and as submitted at the Bar, let the date mentioned in the order dated 3.11.2011 be read as 1.8.1999 in place of 1.8.1989. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned G.P. 3 for the State. Pursuant to the order dated 3.11.2011, District Welfare Officer, Kaimur, Bhabhua is personally present in Court alongwith a supplementary counter affidavit on his behalf. The petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit. Let these be kept on the record. The District Welfare Officer, Kaimur has also produced a Cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- in favour of the petitioner bearing Cheque no. 467749 dated 25.11.2011 drawn on State Bank of India, Bhabua 2 Branch. The original is being handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the amount for the period in question. The plea as per the stand of the respondents was that inspite of repeated request to the Department, funds were not being made available for such payment. In view of the aforesaid, it is now an admitted position that the amount was legally due to the petitioner and the only reason for not making the said payment was lack of funds being sent by the Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises was in occupation of the respondents even after 31.12.2005 and even till date. However, in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 there is categorical statement at paragraph no. 8 that the House has been vacated since 31.12.2005. In view of the factual dispute, this Court is not in a position to adjudicate on this issue. The petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate the same before an appropriate forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was no laches on his part and the respondents have failed to discharge their liability and obligation under law to make payment of rent for the premises which they had occupied, he should be awarded interest on delayed 3 payment. Learned counsel for the State cited lack of proper allocation for the delay and submitted that in view of the fact that up-to-date payment has been made, this Court may not award any interest. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and balancing the equity, this Court is inclined to award interest to the petitioner on delayed payment. However, the Court would restrict the period for calculation of the said amount which shall begin from the time the petitioner approached the Court. Accordingly the petitioner is awarded interest at the rate of 12 percent on delayed payment which shall be counted from October, 2006 till November 2011. Let the same be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order upon the District Welfare Officer, Kaimur. The writ petition stands disposed off. Anand Kr. ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)