0304 2025 THURSDAY Court : CB-07 Item : DL-05 Bench : SINGLE Matter : WPA Status : DFA ID : 266057 AR : NANDY IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 19250 OF 2019 IKBAL ENTERPRISE & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. MR. SARAJIT SEN, ADVOCATE MR. PARAG MITRA, ADVOCATE ……for the Petitioners MR. ARINDAM CHATTOPADHYAY, ADVOCATE MS. LIPIKA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE ……for the State 1. The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Howrah, floated a tender inviting applications from interested contractors for the construction of a road from Barberia Purba Jelia Kaibarta Para, starting from the house of Tarapada Dutta to the house of Bikas Das, under the Hatgachia-II GP of Uluberia-I Block, Howrah. 2. In response to the notice inviting tenders, the petitioner submitted his tender under the name of his firm, Ikbal Enterprise. Upon acceptance of the tender, a work order was issued on 01.08.2012 in favor of the firm. After the completion of the work assigned to the firm, the final bill was submitted on 13.04.2013 to the Assistant Director of Fisheries. It has been jointly submitted by the learned advocates representing both the petitioner and the respondents that the final bill has been cleared by the concerned respondents. 3. The petitioner also submits that a sum of Rs. 1,31,550/- was deducted as a Security Deposit from the final bill. However, no issues were raised regarding the quality or quantity of the work. Despite repeated requests from the petitioner for the release of the security amount, it was only released by the respondents on 05.12.2019. P a g e | 2 4. However, claiming interest on the amount deducted as security deposit due to its withholding of for a considerable period of time, the present writ-petition has been preferred. 5. Mr. Sarajit Sen, learned advocate representing the petitioner, submits that although the respondents did not raise any issues regarding the quality of the work at any point, the petitioner made repeated requests for the release of the security amount. However, these requests were not met with any favorable response, leading the petitioner to file this writ petition. 6. He further submits that in dealing with a similar issue, a coordinate Bench of this Court, by judgment and order dated 12.04.2024 in WPA 22289 of 2018, awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. An intra-court appeal was preferred challenging the said order awarding interest at 9% per annum, but the appeal was dismissed. He cites the decision reported in (2003) 8 SCC 648 (South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) for the proposition that, in the absence of any legal or contractual prohibition, interest can be awarded as compensation for the period during which the authority withheld any amount without providing any justification. 7. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate representing the State, has produced an instruction containing a communication from the Assistant Director of Fisheries to the Director of Fisheries. The communication reflects that the security deposit deducted from the petitioner’s final bill was refunded on 05.12.2019. To justify the delay in the payment of the security deposit, the following statements were made in the communication: P a g e | 3 “It is presumed that the delay for payment of the security deposit may be due to non-clearance from the engineer concerned. Terms and conditions contained in the render document is not ascertained as tender related documents are not found in the Office as the Office of the ADF, Howrah has been shifted three times and documents and papers are not found for the time being.” 8. Therefore, it appears that the delay in refunding the security amount was due to the non-clearance from the concerned engineer or the inability to ascertain the tender documents in the Office of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Howrah. Thus, the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner, as it was entirely caused by the actions or inactions of the concerned respondents. 9. The awarding of interest is not, in all cases, a penalty. Interest is a normal accretion on capital, and if it is found that any amount owed to a person has been withheld, the party responsible for withholding it is liable to pay interest. Therefore, taking note of this principle and following the legal proposition laid down in the aforementioned judgment, I am inclined to hold that justice would be served by directing the payment of interest at the rate of 9% on the security amount. 10. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 is directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,31,550/- deducted as a security deposit, for the period from 13.07.2015 to 05.12.2019. The interest shall be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. P a g e | 4 11. With these observations, the writ-petition being WPA 19250 of 2019 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to the costs. (PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.)