“14. Apart from the fact that the impugned order appears to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta, we find the order even otherwise unsustainable. We have not been shown any provision under which interest becomes automatically payable for delayed payments. May be, as an equitable principle, the person entitled to disbursement of money on a particular date should be compensated by way of interest for delayed payment, when there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The question, however, is, is the Lok Ayukta empowered to pass such an order? In the first place, the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to make an adjudicatory 'order'. Secondly, the power to direct payment of interest on amounts adjudicated and found to be payable must be found in a statute. S.34 of the Civil Procedure Code read with the Interest Act, empowers the Civil Court to make an order awarding interest on the delayed payments found due after adjudication. Inasmuch as the Lok Aukta's power is neither adjudicatory, nor is he empowered to make a binding order, that provision is of no avail. The only legitimate exercise of the Lok Ayuka on the complaint of the respondent could have been to see if, in equity, some compensation, by way of interest or otherwise, be paid to the respondent. This could have been done only upon a clear finding that there was unexplained delay in disbursement on account of default or negligence on the part of the concerned public servant/s in the discharge of duties. We find that the only reason giving for directing payment of interest was that the claims had been admitted by the District Treassury Officer. There is no apportionment of the blame, which was vitally necessary if the equitable claim to interest or compensation was to be entertained. In the circumstances, we are of the view that, without making a finding that there was delay or default
