Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Bsbk Private Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024
-1-
2024:CGHC:41767
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 29.07.2024
Order Delivered on 22.10.2024
WPC No. 2524 of 2024
M/s BSBK Private Limited Through R.K. Nema, S/o Late Shri Ramlal
Nema, Aged About 58 Years, General Manger, M/s BSBK Private Ltd., 4th
Digitally
signed by Floor, Surya Treasure, Island Mall, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
PRAVEEN
KUMAR ... Petitioner
SINHA
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Urban
Administration and Development, Manatralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through The Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (CG)
3 - Executive Engineer, (PMAY And HFA), Municipal Corporation Bilaspur
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Satish Agrawal, Advocate with Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Resp. No.1/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. For Resp. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Order -2-
1. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No.2 issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 25.11.2016 for the work "Construction of Multi Story Building Including Internal Water Supply, Sanitary and Internal Electrification For 1232 Nos. of DUS by Monolithic/PRE-Cast Technology with Infrastructure (Road, Drain, Water Supply, Sewerage, Rain Water Harvesting Etc.) under HFA Scheme" at Ashok Nagar.
2. Petitioner participated in the tender proceedings, became successful and the work was awarded for lump-sum amount of Rs.62,21,60,000/-. An agreement in this regard is also executed between the parties. Petitioner completed the work. 'Work Completion Certificate' was issued on 13.05.2020. Part of RA bills were not disbursed as also security deposit and performance guarantee in terms of Clause 2 & 4 as provided under Annexure -K- (Special Conditions) were also not disbursed. Petitioner wrote several letters and when the request for disbursement of the aforementioned amount was not acceded to, filed writ petition bearing WPC No.1070 of 2021 which was disposed off vide order dated 16.03.2022 granting liberty to the petitioner therein to submit representation to be decided within specified time frame. Upon considering the representation RA bills were disbursed but the outstanding amount towards security deposit and performance guarantee amount were not disbursed. Petitioner thereafter again made several representations upon which respondent No.3 wrote letter to the petitioner mentioning that as only 50% of dwelling units have been handed over to beneficiaries, payment towards security deposit and performance guarantee as mentioned in Clause 2 & 4 Annexure -K (Special Conditions) would be released after handing over -3- 100 % dwelling units to the beneficiaries. Petitioner again wrote letter to the respondent and also sent legal notice. However, when the amount towards security deposit and performance guarantee as per Clause 2 & 4 of Annexure -K (Special Conditions) was not disbursed, this writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by directing and commanding the respondent authorities to pay the overdue and outstanding Security Deposit and Performance Guarantee amounting to Rs.4,97,72,800/- along with the interest @14.25% per annum as being paid by the petitioner to its banks.
10.2. That any other order/relief that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the heavy cost of the petition."
3. Respondents filed reply to the writ petition mentioning that the petitioner is seeking release of the amount to the tune of Rs.3,11,08,000/- (security deposit) and Rs.1,86,64,800/- (performance guarantee), however, has not complied with the clauses under Annexure K (Special Conditions) and is claiming the amount by interpreting the clauses under Special Conditions as per its own. Writ petition involves disputed question of fact, interpretation of contractual obligations, petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy under the contract and therefore writ petition filed is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the issuance of 'Work Completion Certificate' on 13.05.2020 is not in dispute. However, in column No.6-
"Present Status of Work" it is specifically stated that work has been successfully completed, testing and handing over houses is in process . By -4- mere issuance of 'Work Completion Certificate' , petitioner did not accrue any right in its favour to seek refund of amount towards security deposit and performance guarantee. The amount as claimed can only be disbursed after completion of the testing and handing over the houses/DUS.
Respondent have consistently persuaded the petitioner to complete the process of testing and handing over of the site so that process of refund of security deposit and performance guarantee can be initiated post completion of testing and handing over. Letter written to the petitioner are placed on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inaction of the respondents authority of not paying the amount of security deposit and performance guarantee as per the terms of contract is arbitrary, illegal . Project was successfully completed on 31.12.2019 and completion certificate to this effect was issued by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 13.05.2020. As the petitioner has already completed the work as per stipulated time, respondents were under an obligation to release 50% of security deposit to the tune of Rs.1,55,54,000/- and balance amount as per the due date appearing from terms and conditions of contract by 01.09.2020 and likewise the amount towards performance guarantee to the tune of Rs.93,32,400/- by 31.12.2020 and balance of 50% i.e. Rs.93,32,400/- by 31.12.2021. He contended that according to Clause- 2 of Annexure- K (Special Conditions), 50% of the security deposit has to be refunded on completion, testing and handing over of the building to the department and balance 50% after 6 months or after one monsoon whichever is later. Clause -4 under Annexure- K (Special Conditions) provides for defect liability period of 24 months which expired on -5- 31.12.2021 which was also admitted by respondents in their letter dated 07.10.2022. During the defect period, no defect were noticed nor informed to petitioner within the specified time. Pursuant to order passed in earlier writ petition, petitioner submitted representation and while deciding the representation only RA bills were paid and other amount claimed by the petitioner in writ petition was not paid, and was forced to file contempt petition. During the proceedings of contempt petition, petitioner was assured by respondents that they will take necessary action for making payment of the amount. Withholding of the amount as provided under Clause -2 and Clause -4 as per Annexure -K (Special Conditions) of contract is per se illegal and arbitrary. He submits that withholding of balance amount of a commercial transaction without any rhyme or reason is violation of the Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and therefore petitioner is also entitled for interest on unpaid amount withheld since December 2019. He contended that objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to maintainability of writ petition is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decisions in cases of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 5 SCC 697, Unitech Limited & Ors. Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 99), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Vs. AMR Dev Prabha & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 759, Bhaven Construction through authorised Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah Vs. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. And Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 75. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decisions has held that the alternate remedy is not an absolute bar in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India when the act on the part of State is not fair and -6- unreasonable. It is further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court comes to conclusion that the petitioner is entitle for relief as claimed for in this writ petition, interest on the due amount may also be awarded as per bank rate.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that writ petition itself is not maintainable as petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy under Clause 1.18 of the Conditions of Contract forming part of Tender Document which provides for Arbitration Clause . In support of his contention he places reliance upon decision in cases of Raigarh Pathalgaon Expressway Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Chhattisgarh Road Development Corporation Ltd. And Ors. reported in MANU/CG/0267/2024. He further contended that respondents in their reply have specifically pleaded that only 50% of the dwelling unites were handed over to the beneficiaries and not entire 100 % of the dwelling units as constructed by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has not fulfilled the clauses under 'Condition of Contract' and 'Special Conditions'. Hence, no relief can be extended to the petitioner as prayed for in this writ petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.
7. First objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is with respect to maintainability of writ petition on the ground that petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy under Clause 1.18 of the 'Condition of Contract' of referring the matter for arbitration. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of writ petition is arising out of a contract agreement for -7- performing work as mentioned therein which is for "Construction of Multi Story Building Including Internal Water Supply, Sanitary and Internal Electrification For 1232 Nos. of DUS by Monolithic/PRE-Cast Technology with Infrastructure (Road, Drain, Water Supply, Sewerage, Rain Water Harvesting Etc.) under HFA Scheme" at Ashok Nagar. It is also not in dispute that on 31.12.2019 petitioner completed his work and the 'Work Completion Certificate' was issued by respondent No.3 on 13.05.2020. Claim of the petitioner is with respect to not releasing fund deposited by him towards security deposit and performance guarantee in terms of Clause -2 and 4 as provided under under Annexure- K (Special Conditions).
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ABL International Ltd. vs. Employees Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (2004) 3 SCC 553 concluded that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are maintainable for ascertaining contractual right against the State or its instrumentality and held as under:-
"28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] .) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be -8- exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction."
In the aforementioned case, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that under what circumstances the writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India can be entertained and observed thus:-
"27. ........ the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:
(a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable.
(b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule.
(c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable."
9. In case of Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court while answering the question raised with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground of arbitration clause included in agreement between the parties observed thus:-
"33. .............it is now well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or -9- the Supreme Court and that without exhausting such alternative remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable. The various decisions cited by Mr Chakraborty would clearly indicate that the constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the authorities. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution."
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Unitech Ltd. (supra) dealing with the issue with regard to maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has observed thus:-
"40. This exposition has been followed by this Court and has been adopted by three judge Bench decisions of this Court in State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar and Popatrao Vynkatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra. The decision in ABL International, cautions that the plenary power under Article 226 must be used with circumspection when other remedies have been provided by the contract. But as a statement of principle, the jurisdiction under Article 226 is not excluded in contractual matters. Article 23.1 of the Development Agreement in the present case mandates the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration. However, the presence of an arbitration clause within a contract between a state instrumentality and a private party has not acted as an absolute bar to availing remedies under Article 226. If the state instrumentality violates its constitutional mandate under Article 14 to act fairly and reasonably, relief under the plenary powers of the Article 226 of the Constitution would lie. This principle was recognized in ABL -10- International:
"28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] .) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied)
41. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court is entitled to enquire into whether the action of the State or its instrumentalities is arbitrary or unfair and in consequence, in violation of Article 14. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is a valuable constitutional safeguard against an arbitrary exercise of state power or a misuse of authority. In determining as to whether the jurisdiction should be exercised in a contractual dispute, the Court must, undoubtedly eschew, disputed questions of fact which would depend upon an evidentiary determination requiring a trial. But equally, it is well-settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted only on the basis that the dispute pertains to the contractual arena. This is for the simple reason that the State and its instrumentalities are not exempt from the duty to act fairly merely because in their business dealings they have entered into the realm of contract. Similarly, the presence of an arbitration clause does oust the -11- jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though, it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be invoked. The jurisdiction under Article 226 was rightly invoked by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh in this case, when the foundational representation of the contract has failed. TSIIC, a state instrumentality, has not just reneged on its contractual obligation, but hoarded the refund of the principal and interest on the consideration that was paid by Unitech over a decade ago. It does not dispute the entitlement of Unitech to the refund of its principal.
E.2 Contractual right to compensatory payment"
11. Reverting back to the case at hand, the parties to the writ petition entered into contract agreement which provides arbitration clause for deciding the dispute between two. The dispute in this case is of not releasing the security deposit amount as also performance guarantee amount deposited by petitioner at the time of entering into the contract, according to Clause -2 and 4 of the Special Condition of contract. Work awarded to petitioner is not in dispute. Petitioner completed the work and competent authority(respondent No.3) issued 'Work Completion Certificate' is also not disputed by respondents. Claim of the petitioner is that according to clauses mentioned under Special Conditions petitioner is entitled and claim of respondents is that according to same Special Conditions petitioner is not entitled.
12. Issue which is cropped-up in this writ petition and argued by both the sides, it does not involve any disputed question of facts but only as to what the clauses under Special Conditions provide for and, when and at which -12- stage after completion of work security deposit and the performance guarantee amount deposited by the petitioner is to be released . In the light of issue involved in this writ petition for consideration, nature of grievance raised, fact that work awarded to the petitioner was completed and 'Work Completion Certificate' is also issued is not in dispute and therefore this Court comes to the conclusion that writ petition is not liable to be dismissed only on the ground that petitioner is also having other remedy under the 'Condition of Contract of 'Arbitration' and therefore writ petition is held to be maintainable.
13. To better understand the Special Conditions of contract for disbursement of amount deposited towards security deposit and performance guarantee, I find it appropriate to extract relevant clauses of 'Condition of Contract' and 'Special Conditions'. Clause 2.4 mentions Earnest Money. Clause 2.4.1 and 2.7 is extracted below for ready reference:-
"2.4 Earnest Money:
2.4.1 No. tender will be, received, without a deposit of earnest money of Rs. 29.26 Lacs in a separate sealed cover duly prescribed as envelope "A" Earnest Money. The earnest money will be returned to the unsuccessful tenderer on the rejection of their tender and will be retained from successful tenderer as part of security deposit.
x x x
x x x
2.7 There is provision of the Security Deposit shall be @ 5% & performance guarantee in addition to security deposits shall be @3% of the amount of contracts."-13-
14. Refund of security deposit is provided under Clause- 2 of the' Special Conditions' and clause 4 thereof deals with refund of performance guarantee. which read as under:-
"2. Security deposit Clause 1.1 and 2.8 of NIT: Fifty percent of the security deposit will be refunded on completion, testing and handing over of the building, to the department. Remaining fifty percent will be refunded six months after completion or after one monsoons, whichever is later.
x x x
4. Performance Guarantee:
(i) The contractor shall also be responsible for performance of work carried out by him for a period of 24 months (Twenty four) months beyond the completion of work for which performance security has to be furnished by him @ 3% (three percent) of amount of contract. For this purpose contractor has to submit to the department a Bank Quarantee of 3% (three percent) amount of the value of work done on every running and final bill payable to him. If contractor fails to submit bank guarantee of 3% amount of the gross bill, then 3% amount of bill shall be deducted from his running and final bill payment. However, the contractor can get refund of such performance security amount deducted if he submits appropriate bank guarantee valid for the period as stated above or 24 months (Twenty four) month after actual completion.
If require, the Commissioner, of ULB concerned shall ask the contractor to extend the validity period of the Bank Guarantee(s) for such period which he considers it proper and the contractor shall extend the validity period of such Bank Guarantee accordingly. If the contractor fails to extend the period accordingly, the -14- Commissioner, of ULB concerned shall encash the B.G. before the expiry of the validity period.
(iii) The contractor shall have to carry out all necessary "Rectification" of defects noticed, caused due to any reasons at his own cost within such reasonable period mentioned in such communication notice from the Commissioner, / Executive Engineer of ULB concerned to him.
(iii) Failure of the contractor to rectify the defects properly in the given period, it shall be open for the Commissioner, / Executive Engineer of ULB concerned to get the defect(s) rectified either departmentally or through other agency (without calling any tender/quotation) and recover the actual cost plus 15% (fifteen percent) of such cost from the contactor from any sum, in any form, and available with the department or can be recovered as "Arrears of Land Revenue"
(iv) After one year of completion of construction, 50% (fifty percent) of available performance Bank guarantee shall be returned to the contractor subject to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, of ULB concerned.
(v) Remaining performance Bank Guarantee as would be remaining (after recovery all cost plus 15% (Fifteen percent) for rectification of defects, if done by the department or through other agency) shall be returned after 2 years (24 months) of completion.
The performance guarantee will be in addition to the normal security to be deducted as per clause 1 of agreement for the execution of contract."
15. A bare reading of Clause -2 of 'Special Conditions' would show that refund of 50% of security deposit is on completion, testing and handing over -15- the building to department. Under the aforementioned clause, obligation on the part of Contractor is of completion of work awarded, its testing and handing over the building to the department and it does not specifically mention about handing over the building to beneficiaries. In the reply respondents have accepted that after petitioner's submission of letter of completion of work awarded, 'Work Completion Certificate' was issued by respondent No.3 and the document stating that Contractor has completed the work on 31.12.2019 and certificate in this regard was issued in favour of petitioner by respondent No.3 on 13.05.2020.
16. Along with the writ petition, petitioner has enclosed the letters dated 22.03.2022, 16.03.2022, 29.06.2022 requesting for release of 50% of security deposit and performance guarantee. Letter written by the petitioner was replied by respondents on 07.10.2022 vide Annexure P-10 which reads as under:
" उपरोक्त विषयांतर्गत लेख है कि संदर्भित पत्र 05 के माध्यम से आपके द्वारा Security Deposit एवं Performance Guarantee की राशि Release करते हुए भुगतान की मांग की गई है।
Contract Agreement clause No. 2 Annexure के अनुसार " Fifty percent of the Security Deposit will be refunded on completion, testing and handing over of the building to the department. Remaining fifty percent will be refunded six month after completion or after one mansoon whichever is later" चूंकि लगभग 50 प्रतिशत हितग्राहियो (लगभग
600) को DU's Handover किया जा चुका है। शेष DU's Testing and Hand over प्रक्रियाधीन है। उक्त प्रक्रिया पूर्ण होने के पश्चात Security Deposit की राशि का भुगतान आपको किया जावेगा।
इसके अतिरिक्त चूंकि कार्य पूर्ण ता की तिथि 31/12/2019 है, जिसके पश्चात 24 माह की समय भी 31/12/2021 पूर्ण हो चुकी है। किंतु Testing एवं Handover की प्रक्रिया शेष है। सभी DU's की Testing एवं Handover पूर्ण होने के उपरांत Performance Guarantee की -16- राशि का भुगतान आपको किया जायेगा।"
17. Perusal of reply of respondents to letter written by petitioner would show that it mentions that 50% DUs were handed over to the beneficiaries and proceedings of handing over possession of 50% of DUs to the beneficiaries is pending. It further mentions that amount towards security deposit will be released after completion of proceedings of handing over DUs to the beneficiaries.
18. Reason assigned by respondents for withholding refund of amount of security deposit is contrary to terms and condition/Special Conditions of contract. Under Clause -2 of 'Special Condition' of Annexure -K the obligation of Contractor and the stage for refund of 50% security deposit is not uptill handing over the DUs/building to the beneficiaries but handing over to department i.e. respondent No.3 who floated the NIT, awarded the contract. From face of contents of letter and clauses under 'Special Conditions', the inaction on the part of respondents of not releasing 50% of security deposit after completion of work, in the opinion of this Court is not fair . When once intimation is made, that the Contractor completed the work, 'Work Completion Certificate' is also issued in this regard by the competent authority, then it is for the respondent-authority to take over the DUs/building. They cannot ask the Contractor to wait till all the units are being handed over to beneficiaries and that too by respondents.
19. Parties to the contract are bound by terms and conditions of contract and from 'Conditions of Contract' or 'Special Conditions' respondents have failed to point out from any of the clauses, that 50% of the security deposit will be refunded only after handing over the building to the beneficiaries. In -17- absence of any such stipulation under the contract the employer/respondents cannot make any condition/stipulation of their own not forming part of contract. Contractor cannot be made to suffer if lapses is on the part of employer i.e. respondents. It is also not the case of respondents that memo mentioning that Contractor has already completed the work and the 'Work Completion Certificate' issued by competent authority was not correct and erroneous more so when in the letter and reply respondents themselves have written that 50% of the houses constructed by the petitioner-Contractor have already been allotted to the beneficiaries without making any objection on quality and quantity of construction made therein.
Allotting of remaining 50% DUs to the beneficiaries is job of respondent-
employer, it is not the obligation of petitioner under contract.
20. Even from the date of issuance of 'Completion Certificate' i.e. 13.05.2020, two years period of performance guarantee expired on 13.05.2022. Along with reply, respondents have not submitted any document to show that the work completed and DUs distributed by respondents to the beneficiaries was not up to specification of terms and conditions of contract and the amenities mentioned therein is not constructed and completed. The letters which are enclosed along with reply by respondents asking the Contractor to do the repairing work are of 12.04.2024 and 13.06.2024.
21. Letters which are written are of beyond the period of performance guarantee as mentioned in Clause -4 of Annexure- K (Special Conditions).
22. From the aforementioned facts of the case it is prima facie appearing to this Court that respondents acted unfairly, arbitrarily in withholding the amount of security deposit and performance guarantee, refund of which petitioner is entitled for. Accordingly it is held that petitioner is entitled for the -18- refund of security deposit as also performance guarantee .
23. So far as the claim of interest on the amount due to petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that parties entered into commercial transaction, petitioner made huge investment, has also made huge deposit of Rs.3,11,08,000/- towards security deposit and Rs.1,86,64,800/- towards performance guarantee. Aforementioned amount is arbitrarily withheld by respondent without there being any valid reason. Award of interest in writ petition falls within the ambit of discretionary jurisdiction. In the case at hand this is the second round of litigation . Earlier petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing writ petition in the year 2021. Writ petition was disposed off granting liberty to petitioner to submit representation upon which respondents have only considered the release of amount due towards RA bills only and amount of security deposit as also performance guarantee was not refunded without justifiable reason, contrary to terms of 'Special Conditions' of contract.
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department Government of Orissa & Ors. Vs. G.C. Roy (1992) 1 SCC 508, has observed that "a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has right to be compensated for deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, to balance the equities, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is entitled for award of interest if the amount as ordered by this Court is not paid within time.
25. Accordingly it is ordered that respondents shall refund the amount towards security deposit and performance guarantee to the petitioner within period of two months, failing which, the aforementioned amount shall carry -19- interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
26. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-/----/--/---/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen