IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9860 of 2008 M/S ARPEE ALUM DÉCOR (INDIA) through its proprietor Radheshyam Pandey son of Sri Ramakant Pandey, resident of Mohalla- 23, Rajiv Nagar, Road No. 23/9, Manikunj, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna. ………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Co-operative Bank Ltd. through its Chairman, Head Office Ashok Rajpath, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office, Ashok Raj Path, P.S. Pirbahore, District-Patna. 3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office Ashok Rajpath, P.S. Pirbahore, District- Patna. 4. The Deputy General Manager, Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office Ashok Rajpath, P.S.- Pirbahore, District-Patna. 5. The Branch Manager, Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Musallahpur Hat Branch (Raja Ram Place), Rampur Nahar Road, P.S. Sultanganj, District- Patna. ……..Respondents. For the petitioner :- Sri Janardan Pd. Singh, Adv. Sri Arbind Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondents:- Sri S.N.Pathak, Adv. Sri Girish Chandra Jha, Adv. ----------- 09 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 4,14,659/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 25.02.2005 when it had fallen due till the date of actual payment and also for an adequate compensation for harassment caused to the petitioner. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that on 10.12.2004 the respondent Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. invited tenders for complete modernization of Musallahpur Hatt, Kankarbagh and New Market Branches for different types of Civil, Electrical and other Interior works and the petitioner was selected and he completed the work and hence Rs. 4,14,659/- became due on 25.02.2005 as per the work order, but no amount has been paid. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after verification it was found that the petitioner has done work only worth Rs. 2,65,000/- and after deducting tax at source Rs. 2,49,100/- have been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 17.07.2010. He further submits that no other amount is due as per the calculation of the respondents. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is quite apparent that admittedly, even according to the respondents, petitioner has completed the work worth of Rs. 2,65,000/- which had fallen due on 25.02.2005, but it was paid on 17.07.2010. In the said circumstances the respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the said admitted 3 dues, namely, 2,65,000/- for the period from 25.02.2005 to 17.07.2010 to the petitioner within three months from today after deducting tax at source, as had been done with respect to the principal amount paid by the respondents. 6. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However the petitioner will be at liberty to raise his claim with respect to the remaining disputed dues before an appropriate forum. Bhardwaj ( S.N.Hussain, J.)