IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.12990 OF 2002 Dt.31.12.2009 Between: Sri Syed Mahdi Ali Khan Sikander … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Secretary to Government of A.P. (Education Department) Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.12990 OF 2002 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has claimed payment of Rs.20,86,267/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the respondents. However, at the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined the petitioner’s claim to payment of Rs.26,032-50 paise, which is admittedly due from and payable by the respondents in pursuance of sale deed dt.20.10.1995. It is not necessary for this Court to delve into several events that preceded the execution of the sale deed between the petitioner and the respondents. It would only suffice to note that in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.11081 of 1995, Writ Appeal No.733 of 1995 and Contempt Case No.429 of 1995, dt.9.8.1995, the parties to this Writ Petition entered into the transaction of the sale deed referred to above. Clause – 1 of the said sale deed reads as under: “In consideration of the sum of Rs.18,95,467-50 (Rupees Eighteen lakhs ninety five thousand four hundred sixty seven and paise fifty only), hereby paid by the vendee to the vendors by way of a crossed Demand Draft, drawn in favour of Vendor No.1, and the Vendee agreeing to pay the balance amount of Rs.26,032-50 (Rupees twenty six thousand thirty two and paise fifty only) after obtaining sanction therefor within two weeks of the date of this sale deed, the Vendors hereby execute this sale deed, and the vendors hereby acknowledge receipt of the said sum of Rs.18,95,467-50. The Vendors as owners hereby transfer to the Vendee by way of sale all the property fully described in the schedule hereto and for greater clearness delineated on the plan hereto annexed, absolutely and forever.” As payment of Rs.26,032-50 ps., was not made in accordance with the above reproduced recital, the petitioner caused legal notice dt.28.12.1996 issued for immediate payment of the said sum along with interest thereon at 18% per annum from 20.10.1995. In response thereto, respondent No.3 evidently sent reply dt.10.1.1997. With reference to the said reply, the petitioner got another notice sent through his Lawyer on 5.8.1997, wherein it is mentioned that in his reply dt.10.1.1997 respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that cheque is awaited and that payment will be made soon. In the legal notice it was stated that if payment is not made within one week after receipt of the notice, the petitioner will be forced to initiate appropriate legal proceedings. As no payment was forthcoming, the petitioner got another legal notice dt.23.9.1997 calling upon respondent No.3 to make payment with interest at 18% per annum. It appears, for more than five years, no action was taken by the respondents for payment. However, respondent No.3 broke his silence in the year 2002 by issuing proceedings dt.13.3.2002 addressed to the Commissioner & Director, School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, wherein it is inter alia stated that the sum of Rs.26,032-50 ps., is liable to be paid to the petitioner and he requested the Commissioner and Director of School Education to grant sanction for making payment of the said amount. As no further action was taken thereon for payment, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, their liability to pay the sum of Rs.26,032-50 ps., to the petitioner is admitted. It has been inter alia averred that due to “various reasons” the said amount was not paid to the petitioner. It is further maintained that the petitioner has to file a civil suit for recovery of the unpaid sale consideration and the Writ Petition is, therefore, not maintainable. In my considered opinion, in the absence of any justification whatsoever offered by the respondents for non-payment of admitted amount, the petitioner cannot be driven to file a civil suit. As noted hereinabove, the sale deed was executed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court and on the basis of a joint memo entered into between the parties, which was placed on record in the above mentioned cases before this Court. The respondents being State and its instrumentalities, cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the commitment made by them in pursuance of which this Court disposed of the cases. Therefore, I am unable to accept the specious plea of the respondents that the petitioner should approach the civil court for recovery of the admitted amount. In the absence of any dispute as to the petitioner’s entitlement, no triable issue exists to drive the petitioner to the civil court. With regard to payment of interest, the law is well settled that a person who is unduly deprived of the payment of money is entitled in equity for interest (See Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited v. Rattanji Ramji[1] and Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh[2]). As the respondents failed to offer any reason for not paying the admitted amount, the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest at reasonable rate. In my opinion, though the market rate is far higher, the respondents being State and its Officers, I feel that 12% per annum will be reasonable rate of interest, which may partially compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered by him on account of withholding of the payment of the admitted amount. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay the sum of Rs.26,032-50 ps., along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.1.1996 till the date of payment. The above said amount should be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.16138 of 2002, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31.12.2009 b n r [1] AIR 1938 PC 67 [2] AIR 1961 SC 908