1 2025:CGHC:38588-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4010 of 2025 M/s Ramniwas Agrawal, through partner Durgesh Agrawal, S/o Ramnivas Agrawal, aged about 42 years, Contractor, R/o Bhatapara, District Balodabazaar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector District Balodabazaar- Bhatapara, C.G. 3 - Municipal Council Bhatapara Through Chief Municipal Officer, Bhatapara, District Balodabazaar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General along with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside / quash the letter dated 02/06/2025 passed by the Respondent No.3. 10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to pay the interest of 18% of delayed payment as per section 3 of the Interest Act. 10.3 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 3. The brief facts of case are that the respondent No. 3, Office of the Municipal Council, Bhatapara invited bids /application for the construction of drain from Naka No. 1 to Rest House through E- procurement Tender Notice by publishing the advertisement dated 13.03.2012. The petitioner firm also participated in the said tender process and was awarded the tender being the sole bidder and thereafter on 17.07.2012 agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 was executed to that effect. The work has been completed by the petitioner on time i.e. 10.04.2013 itself even after the work extended by the Department/Council such as slab construction and culvert construction and despite many representations being submitted by the petitioner when the petitioner's security fund amount and escalation payment of the said work were not made by the respondent No.3, the petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No. 5561/2022 before this Court and during the pendency of the writ petition, the security deposit and 3 escalation amount was withheld and after 11 years, the escalation cost of Rs.5,61,908/- and an amount of Rs.11,37,000/- of security deposit has been released in his favour, but interest on the said amount of security deposit has not been paid. As such, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.01.2025, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority claiming interest on the security deposit amount and further directed that the authority that on such demand being raised by the petitioner, the same shall be decided as per the terms and conditions of the agreement within a period of fifty days from the date of claim raised by the petitioner. Vide impugned letter dated 02.06.2025, the respondent No.3 has informed the petitioner that the amount of interest demanded by him cannot be paid as it is not provided and mentioned in the contract terms. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned letter dated 02.06.2025 is illegal and arbitrary as the respondent No.3 made submission before this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner may make representation on the interest part and the authorities will consider the same, whereby at later stage, the authorities have denied to pay interest amount contending that there is no provision of interest as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. He further submitted that as per clause 5.3(f) of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the respondent authorities are duty bound to pay the interest amount to the petitioner. 4 5. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that admittedly, the escalation cost of Rs.5,61,908/- and an amount of Rs.11,37,000/- of security deposit has already been released in favour of the petitioner after lapse of 11 years of the completion of work, but so far as payment of interest as per terms and conditions of the agreement is concerned, there is no provision in the agreement for grant of interest for delayed payment, as such, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra