IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.208 of 2009 1. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajay Sahkari Bhumi Vikash Bank Simit, Budh Marg Patna-1 2. The Managing Director (Finance), Bihar Rajay Sahkari Bhumi Vikash Bank Simit, Budh Marg Patna-1 3. Accounts Officer, Bihar Rajay Sahkari Bhumi Vikash Bank Simit, Budh Marg Patna-1 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Registrar Cooperative Societies, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan , Patna 2. M/s Kaushal Industries, Iron Founders and Engineers, Nunhai Agra, Uttar Pradesh through its holder of Power of Attorney, Amarnath Kaushal, son of Baijnath Kaushal ----------- 6 03-07-2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and learned counsel for the State. There was a dispute between the writ petitioner who is respondent no.2 herein and the appellants on the issue of refund of security money which was a sum of Rs one lac deposited with the Bank. The dispute arose because even after the writ petitioner conveyed to the Director of the appellants Bank that he is not interested in renewal of his agreement because of the conduct of the Bank and, therefore, his security money along with interest be returned to him, it was not refunded leading to writ petition. The security amount of Rs one lac was refunded by the appellants during the pendency of the writ petition and at the time of disposing of the writ petition finally by the order under appeal dated 6-8-2008 the writ court noticed that the security money had been refunded through a cheque dated 23-6-08 but to compensate the writ petitioner with interest the appellants Bank must pay interest on the money held by it. Accordingly, the writ court held 2 that from the date the security became due for refund till the date of payment the writ petitioner is entitled to a simple interest of six percent per annum and the same should be calculated and paid as compensation within a period of one month from the date of production of that order before the Managing Director of the Bank. The only short issue raised before us through this appeal is that for the purpose of payment of interest a firm date should be indicated from which Bank should be held liable for payment till the payment of Rs One lac on 23-6-08. While interpreting the order of the writ court, according to learned counsel for the respondent/ writ petitioner, the interest component became due after the year 2002 when according to writ petitioner his agreement with the Bank was not renewed and he stopped supply of the diesel engines to the loanees of the Bank. It has further been submitted that the agreement between the parties contains a clause as to when the security deposit shall become liable to be refunded. It has been pointed out from paragraph 2 of the deed of agreement (annexure-1 to the appeal) that refund of security deposit becomes due on expiry of 30 days of (i) date of deletion of the name of supplier from the approved list or (ii) from the date the supplier conveys his decision to the Bank to stop supply through the Bank provided there is no outstanding dues against the supplier. The averments in the writ petition is to the effect that 3 since 2002 the agreement was not renewed with the writ petitioner and on that basis it has been submitted that impliedly writ petitioner’s name was deleted from the approved list of suppliers. Such averment in paragraph 11 of the writ petition has not been controverted in the counter affidavit but before us it has been submitted on behalf of appellants Bank that there is no requirement in the deed of agreement for renewal of the same and there is no material to hold that name of the writ petitioner as a supplier was deleted from the approved list of suppliers from any particular date or from the year 2002. Hence, according to learned counsel for the appellants the refund of security deposit became due only when the supplier through his letter dated 24-6-06 disclosed that he was no longer desirous of making supplies and asked for refund of the security amount along with interest. According to learned counsel for the appellants the interest awarded by the writ court is not in terms of deed of agreement. He, however, submitted that in any case even on equity no interest can be allowed to the supplier/ writ petitioner from any date prior to 24-6-06 when he demanded for refund of the security amount. Learned counsel for the respondent/ writ petitioner on the other hand submitted that because the Bank did not order for supply of pumps to the writ petitioner since 2002, hence, it must be presumed that his name was deleted from the list of suppliers since 2002. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the 4 view that there is no reliable material on record to hold that the name of the writ petitioner was deleted from the approved list of suppliers in 2002 or from any date earlier or later. The second eventuality which made the security deposit refundable materialized when the writ petitioner as a supplier conveyed the decision that he was no longer interested in supplying the diesel engines through the Bank and, therefore, his security deposit should be refunded with interest. In that view of the matter, we clarify that interest shall be payable by the Bank as directed by the writ court upon the security deposit from 24-6-06 till 23-6-08 when the security amount of Rs one lac was refunded by a cheque of that date. With this modification and clarification, the appeal is dismissed. As directed by the writ court the dues on account of interest must be paid within four weeks from today. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)