22 1100..0099..22002266 Court No. 652 D.Hira WPA 17606 of 2022 Soham Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Syamal Kumar Das, Ms. Krishna Yadav, Ms. Bushra Neshat. … for the petitioner Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Kawaljeet Singh. … for the State 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner, who has been a contractor with the respondent authority alleging arbitrary and illegal withholding of bills by the respondent authority, even after completion of the works under contract. The prayer of the writ petitioner is for grant of interest due to delayed bill reimbursement by the respondent authority, for the period of delay. 3. The petitioner has stated that his bills from 01.09.2017 to 21.10.2017 stood due, totalling an amount of Rs.33,62,093/-. 4. The petitioner has prayed for in the writ petition for realization of the said bill amount as well as interest thereupon. 5. Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, learned advocate is representing the State. 2 6. A report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Birbhum dated August 16, 2026 is filed in Court today. 7. On careful perusal thereof, it is noted that the works done by the petitioner as well as due completion thereof in terms of the contract, has not been denied by the respondent authority in the said report. 8. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of interest for delayed payment has been denied for the reason that payment of interest due to delayed payment of bill is not a condition of the contract between the parties. 9. The respondent has stated that there is no arbitrariness or illegality on its part since the bill amount has already been disbursed in favour of the petitioner and the contractual obligation has been performed by the respondent authority. 10. So far as the receipt of the bill amount to the tune of Rs.33,62,093/-, Mr. Syamal Kumar Das, learned advocate for the petitioner also raises no objection as to the same. 11. Instead it is submitted that the principal amount of the bill has been disbursed by the respondent authority on September 6, 2022. 12. Having perused the materials before me and having considered the submissions of the respective parties, it appears that the petitioner supplied goods under a work order issued by the respondent authority. 13. He submitted bills during the financial year 2017- 2018 within the period from 01.09.20187 to 21.10.2017. The bill amount to the tune of 3 Rs.33,62,093/- has ultimately been paid by the respondent authority on September 6, 2022, which the petitioner too accepts to be a correct fact. 14. Now the petitioner has prayed for interest due to delayed payment of bill by the respondent authority. 15. Contention of the respondent authority regarding no eligibility of the writ petitioner as to the interest upon delayed payment, due to the fact of the interest not been part of the contract is not an acceptable ground. 16. The interest in spite of not being a part of contract, is the automatic measure to compensate the writ petitioner for delay in payment the bill amount. The fact of delay is undisputed by the respondent authority. The absence of an express stipulation in the contract providing for interest on delayed payment does not, by itself, denude the Court of the power to award reasonable interest where the principal amount has become due and payable but has been wrongly or unjustifiably withheld. The claim for interest may arise not merely from an express contractual term, but also from the legal consequences attaching to the retention of another’s money after the date on which it became payable. Once the entitlement to the principal amount is established, continued withholding of that amount deprives the claimant of its legitimate use and confers an unwarranted benefit upon the person in default. Interest in such circumstances is compensatory in character: it seeks to neutralise, to a reasonable extent, the financial prejudice occasioned by the delayed payment and to restore the claimant, 4 so far as money can do so, to the position in which it would have been had the admitted or adjudged dues been paid when they fell due. The respondent’s argument means that awarding interest would amount to rewriting contractual clauses, which is not so, it constitutes an exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction to mould consequential and equitable relief upon determination of the underlying monetary liability. Thus, a contractual silence as to interest is not necessarily a prohibition against its award where the nature of the monetary liability and the period of wrongful withholding warrant compensatory interest. 17. In such circumstances, the Court is inclined to find that the petitioner is entitled for interest over the bill amount for the period of delay in payment of the same. 18. Let this writ petition be disposed of by directing the respondent no. 7/The Superintendent of Police, Birbhum to immediately disburse the interest on the bill amount to the tune of Rs.33,62,093/- at the rate of current Savings Bank interest of a nationalized bank from the date of the bill till the date of disbursement that is, September 6, 2022. 19. Such exercise shall be concluded by the said respondent authority within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. 20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, WPA No. 17606 of 2022 is disposed of. 5 21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)