IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1189 of 2009 RAM SAGAR PATHAK Son of Late Shri Kant Pathak resident of Village-Mathar, Police Station-Nayagaon District-Begusrai. .................. Appellant Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the District Magistrate, Begusrai. 2.The Principal Secretary Minor Irrigation Department Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director Public Information Officer- Cum-Account Administration Self employment district Rural Development Agency, Begusrai. 4.The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusrai. 5.The Block Development Officer Sahebpur kamal Block, Begusrai. ................. Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Sri D.K. Sinha, Senior Advocate For the Respondent : Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh, S.C.-21 2 19-02-2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The appellant-writ petitioner, while assailing the impugned order dated 3.8.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.8860 of 2009, has a very limited grievance that he ought to have been awarded the amount of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the due date instead of 1.4.2007 and to that extent he bases his claim on a plea that under similar circumstances this Court in some other cases pertaining to the same nature of award of Contract/Works while directing for payment of the 2 principal amount had also held them entitled for payment of interest from the due date till its payment. In order to appreciate the said grievance, it would be necessary for this Court to take into account that the appellant-writ petitioner in the connected writ petition C.W.J.C. No.8860 of 2009 had sought a relief for payment of admitted dues of Rs.5,10,418/- along as also penal interest @ 15% per annum thereon from the date of commencement of work till the date of its payment on the ground that withholding of such payment of principal amount for the work allotted to him in respect of sinking/fixing self submersible boring in Sahebpur Kamal Block of Begusrai district while implementing the scheme of the District Rural Development fund, Minor Irrigation Bihar Patna by the Respondents was wholly arbitrary. From reading of the writ petition it would transpire that the petitioner is a registered contractor in the Public Health Engineering Department (P.H.E.D.) and was allotted certain works under the orders of the Block Development Officer, Sahebpur kamal for 3 sinking/fixing self submersible boring vide office order dated 15.1.1990, Office order No.623 dated 1.3.1990, office order no.531 dated 16.3.1990, office order no.541 dated 22.3.1990 and office order no.1/D.B. dated 28.6.1991. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ application that the said work allotted to him between 15.1.1990 to 28.6.1991 pertaining to 372 borings was completed by him some time before 22.8.1994 and in fact the payment as stipulated for completing those works was also made for 275 out of total 372 borings leaving payment for rest of them, i.e, 97 borings as dues for want of fund/allotment. In this respect it is the case of the petitioner that he had filed a representation on 22.8.1994 which was followed by another representation after nearly twelve year only on 17.3.2006, but when nothing for making payment was done in this respect by the respondents and he could come to know that this Court by two different orders dated 27.3.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.10167 of 2008 and C.W.J.C. No.14111 of 2008 had passed orders for payment of principal amount 4 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the due date till its payment, he too had filed the writ application on 28.7.2009 for a similar relief. In this regard the appellant-writ petitioner, in order to support his claim that the payment has been withheld only for want of allotment, has relied on a communication of the Block Development Officer, Sahebpur Kamal to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusrai dated 25.6.2009. The learned Single Judge having appreciated the aforementioned aspects in the impugned order had held that the principal amount admissible and payable to the appellant-writ petitioner be paid to him along with 6% interest thereon with effect from 1.4.2007 till the date of its payment. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has placed reliance on the orders of two cases of two other contractors wherein this Court by two separate orders both dated 27.3.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.14111 of 2008 Md. Hena Vs. State of Bihar and others and C.W.J.C. No.10167 of 2008 Amibka 5 Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others, had directed for payment of principal amount along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date it became due till the date of its payment on the ground that such claim was not disputed and the money was all along lying in the district treasury and thus, this Court virtually awarded compensation by way of interest. In our considered opinion, neither payment of interest was a condition precedent in the work order as contained in Annexures- 1 to 6 of the writ application nor there is anything to show that the work allotted to the petitioner was completed in the stipulated period. Such work orders would also go to show that the payment was to be also made from two sources, namely, grant from the government and also collecting rest of the amount from the concerned farmer in whose land borings were to be sunk. It is thus not clear to this Court as to when the petitioner had completed his obligation and in fact there is no definite statement as to when the appellant-writ petitioner had completed the total work of sinking 372 borings for which he was given six different work orders. 6 Admittedly, in his case it can also not be said that the total liability of payment was to be made by the government itself, inasmuch as, those work orders itself envisaged payment from two sources. The petitioner in the writ application has given no such detail of payment and in the writ application filed in the year 2009 pertaining to cause of action of the year 1990-91 he has remained most vague in his approach by stating the following statements:- “That it is stated that the Block Development Officer, Sahebpur Kamal Begusrai directed the petitioner to fix total 372 boring in the respective selected agriculture land of the beneficiary farmer but payment has been made only for 275 boring and rest payment for work done of 97 boring dues in wanting of fund allotment.” In view of aforementioned statement of the appellant-writ petitioner coupled with the fact that he has himself admitted that the cause of action for such payment had arisen in the year 1992 and still he had moved this Court only in the year 2009 by filing the writ application in question, he cannot claim the relief for payment of interest from the due date. Such pure money 7 claim for payment of interest, in fact, by itself would not be permissible within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India as was held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basf India Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors‟ reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 714 and in the case of „Patna Hume Pipe Vs. State of Bihar & Ors‟ reported in 1993 (1) BLJR 600. That apart, in absence of any pleading to the said effect that either the petitioner had completed the work in question within the stipulated period or the fund for the same had already been lying in the civil deposit as was in the case of Ambika Prasad (Supra) and Md. Hena (Supra), this Court would also not be in a position to hold that there was unreasonable delay in payment of the balance amount to the appellant-writ petitioner without reasonable cause. It is also well settled that no one can make premium of his own laches and lapses and if the appellant-writ petitioner himself had moved this Court in the year 2009 for payment of amount with interest in respect of work orders of the year 1991 he could not have been entitled for payment of interest from 8 the year 1992. Thus, in our considered opinion, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in not directing for payment of interest from the due date till its payment and thus we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There would be however no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)