IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.22810 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.12.2010 M/s Devi Dass Gopal Krishan. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. R. L. Batta, Sr.Advocate with Mr. J.S. Saggi, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of notice dated 9.9.2010, Annexure P-8, issued by the Market Committee, Bahadurgarh for recovery of interest @ 12% for delayed payment of outstanding market fee under the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. 2. Case set out in the petition is that the petitioner company was manufacturing oil and was liable to pay market fee on purchase of agricultural produce. It filed C.W.P. No.7119 of 1988 challenging Amendment Act of 1988, providing for levy of fee affecting the petitioner. The levy was upheld vide Full Bench judgment of this Court dated 29.3.1990 in C.W.P. No.3923 of 1986 M/s Subash Chander Kamlesh Kumar v. State of C.W.P. No.22810 of 2010 Haryana. Following the said judgment, the writ petition of the petitioner was also dismissed on 31.3.2010. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the outstanding amount on 17.5.2010. Respondent No.3 Market Committee raised the demand of interest @ 12% for delayed payment of the outstanding amount after 19 years and 2 months. 3. According to the petitioner, the demand of interest was illegal and arbitrary and barred by limitation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We find that writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed in view of order passed in C.W.P. No.7118 of 1988 as follows:- “As the interim order has been enjoyed since 8.3.1991 which was obtained while placing reliance on a connected matter which had been dismissed on 11.10.1991, we direct counsel for the respondent- Market Committee to recover all the arrears of market fee due as a result of vacation of the interim order and an affidavit to this effect be filed on or before 20.5.2010.” 6. After considering the affidavit filed in pursuance thereof, following order was passed on 25.5.2010:- “Affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed as per directions given by this Court on March 31, 2010. Keeping in view the above affidavit, no further orders are necessary. The respondents are, however, directed to ensure recovery along with interest accruable as per law expeditiously.” 2 C.W.P. No.22810 of 2010 7. In view of above, demand of interest has been raised in pursuance of order of this Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any legal bar to demand of interest. Moreover, on the principle of restitution, raising of demand for interest for delayed payment cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. AIR 2003 SC 4482, it was observed:- “19. Interest is also payable in equity in certain circumstances. The rule in equity is that interest is payable even in the absence of any agreement or custom to that effect though subject, of course, to a contrary agreement (See: Chitty on Contracts, Addition 1999, Vol.II, Part 38-248, at page 712). Interest in equity has been held to be payable on a market rate even though the deed contains no mention of interest. Applicability of the rule to award interest in equity is attracted on the existence of a state of circumstances being established which justify the exercise of such equitable jurisdiction and such circumstances can be many.” 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 21, 2010 (RAJESH BINDAL) ashwani JUDGE 3