WP(C) No.31333 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.31333 of 2025 (Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Nirmal Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha, represented through its Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Commerce and Transport Department and Others … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Panda, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. G. Tripathy, AGA Mr. P.K. Behera, Standing Counsel for O.P.2 and 3 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 13th January, 2026 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Behera, learned standing counsel for State Transport Authority and Mr. G. Tripathy, learned AGA for State – opposite parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to non-payment of road tax amount, her (her late husband’s) vehicle was put to auction on 28th November, 2019 and an amount of Rs.9,97,000/- was fetched by the Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 19-Jan-2026 17:27:11 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.31333 of 2025 transport authorities. The auction money was received by the transport authorities immediately thereafter. But the due amount of MV tax payable in respect of the vehicle was only Rs.1,49,930/-. Thus the excess amount received upon auction of the vehicle was returned to the petitioner, but with delay of more than 6 years. The excess amount was only returned to the petitioner on 18th November, 2025, that too after filing of present writ petition. 3. In the circumstances, the petitioner claims for payment of interest on the excess amount retained by the transport authorities for such a long period, and according to the petitioner interest @ 12% per annum should be paid to her. 4. As per contentions of Mr. Behera, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3 (State Transport Authorities), the date of auction and date of return of excess amount to the petitioner is not disputed. In other words it is admitted on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 that the excess amount due to the petitioner was returned with delay. 5. When the delayed return of excess amount fetched in the action of the vehicle in question is undisputed, there cannot be any reason to refuse payment of interest by the authorities who retained the excess amount for Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 19-Jan-2026 17:27:11 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.31333 of 2025 such a long period, because the reason of delay is not attributable to the petitioner. In Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 372, it has been stated that, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimant. 6. In such circumstances applying the principles of Interest Act, 1978 as well as in terms of the principles contained in provisions under Section 34 of the CPC, it is held that the authorities are liable to pay due interest, and in the opinion of this court @ 8% per annum, in the given facts and situation of this case. 7. In the result the writ petition is allowed and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed to pay interest @ 8% per annum over the excess amount they received in the auction and retained for the period till 18th November, 2025, i.e. the date on which amount was paid to the petitioner. The interest amount should be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K. Panda/P.A