Allowed¶42

The State of Bihar v. Urmila Devi

Patna HC22 Oct 2024L.P.A/337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, LPA No.337 of 2024 arising from CWJC No.8545 of 2023 (Urmila Devi v. State of Bihar), decided 22-10-2024 by K. Vinod Chandran, CJ and Partha Sarthy, J. Keywords: Article 226 maintainability; interest on delayed contractual payments; limitation running from date of payment; Limitation Act 1963; 7% simple interest set aside; work completed 1991, payment made 2018; RTI response Annexure-R/6A; interest paid only to contractors who approached the Court; quantum of loss requires evidence; Minor Water Resources Department; Begusarai.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge (granting 7% simple interest) is set aside; interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand closed. ¶42

The State of Bihar Vs Urmila Devi — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge (granting 7% simple interest) is set aside; interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable to claim interest on delayed payment of bills in a purely contractual matter, where the petitioner could have approached the Civil Court within three years of the 2018 payment. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge erred in granting and computing interest in a petition under Article 226 without adjudicating the quantum of loss caused by the delay, which has to be on sufficient evidence and cannot be agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The 118 days' delay in filing the appeal is condoned and I.A. No. 2 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶22

Key takeaways

Limitation for a claim of interest commenced from the date of payment in 2018; the petitioner could have moved the Civil Court for interest within three years from that date, since the payments related to bills submitted in 1991.ratio¶37
The writ petition was a clear attempt to get over the limitation provided under the Limitation Act, 1963; in any event, in contractual matters Article 226 cannot be invoked.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal by the State of Bihar allowed; Division Bench of the Patna High Court (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ and Partha Sarthy, J) set aside the learned Single Judge's direction to pay 7% simple interest per annum on bills of a contractor whose work was completed in 1991 but paid only in 2018 pursuant to a judgment in another contractor's case. Held: (i) limitation for a claim of interest commenced from the date of payment in 2018, and the petitioner could have moved the Civil Court within three years thereof; (ii) the writ petition filed in 2023 was a clear attempt to get over the Limitation Act, 1963; (iii) in contractual matters Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked; and (iv) the Single Judge erred in granting and computing interest without adjudicating, on sufficient evidence, the quantum of loss caused by the delay, which cannot be agitated in a petition under Article 226. The 118 days' delay in filing the appeal was condoned and I.A. No. 2 of 2024 disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.337 of 2024 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8545 of 2023

¶3

======================================================

¶4

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶5

The Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶6

The District Magistrate, Begusarai.

¶7

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai.

¶8

... ... Appellant/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

Urmila Devi Wife of Late Aniklal Das Resident of Rajopur, Ajni, Begusarai, Aijani, Bihar- 848204.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K.Shahi, A.G. Mr.Ajit Kumar, GA-9 Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶13

Date : 22-10-2024

¶14

Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2024

¶15

There is 118 days delay in filing the appeal.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner who

¶17

appears for the respondent in appeal, opposes the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶18

Having gone through the affidavit, we are

¶19

Patna High Court L.P.A No.337 of 2024 dt.22-10-2024 2/5

¶20

convinced that there is sufficient reason shown for condonation

¶21

of delay.

¶22

Delay is condoned.

¶23

I.A. No. 2 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶24

Re. L.P.A.No. 337 of 2024

¶25

On consent, the matter was heard at the admission

¶26

stage itself.

¶27

The appellant-the State Government is aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which granted 7% simple interest per annum on the delayed payments of the bills of the writ petitioner.

¶28

We heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants and Ms. Aditi Hansaria, learned Counsel, who appeared for the petitioner in the writ petition; also appearing before us in the appeal.

¶29

The admitted fact is that the petitioner had completed a work in the year 1991. The payment of the bills submitted by the petitioner, with respect to the work completed in 1991, was only in the year 2018. In the year 2023, the petitioner filed the writ petition; seeking interest for the delayed payments, the order in which is challenged before us in appeal,

¶30

The learned Single Judge noticed that the amounts

¶31

Patna High Court L.P.A No.337 of 2024 dt.22-10-2024 3/5

¶32

were paid only by virtue of the judgment of this Court and hence, the petitioner is entitled to reasonable interest, which was quantified at 7% simple interest.

¶33

The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that the matter is purely contractual and there could not be a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is submitted that admittedly, the payments were made in 2018 and if there was a claim for interest, the petitioner could have approached the Civil Court within three years. The petitioner has approached the writ court after the limitation provided for agitating the cause in the Civil Court and hence, she is further prohibited from invoking the extraordinary remedy.

¶34

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that there was a delay of 27 years in paying the amounts and the State cannot now say that no interest would be paid. In fact, the petitioner's claim was settled in the year 2018 by reason of the judgment passed in the case of another contractor. The petitioner also pointed out the response to the RTI query produced as Annexure-R/6A, in which it is clearly indicated that interest was paid only to those contractors who approached the Court. Hence, the writ petition was filed, is the

¶35

Patna High Court L.P.A No.337 of 2024 dt.22-10-2024 4/5

¶36

submission.

¶37

We cannot but notice that the petitioner, whose bill payments were pending from 1991, did not approach any authority or a legal forum to get disbursed the amounts as per the bills submitted. It is on the basis of a judgment passed in another contractor’s case that the payments were made by the State. Admittedly, the payments were made in the year 2018. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General, the petitioner could have moved the Civil Court for interest within three years from the date of payment, which could be taken as the point at which the limitation had commenced for reasons of the admitted payments having been made with respect to the bills submitted in the year 1991.

¶38

The petitioner did not approach the Civil Court nor did the petitioner approach the Writ Court within the limitation provided. The present attempt by a writ petition is clearly to get over the limitation, as provided under the Limitation Act,1963. In any event, in contractual matters Article 226 cannot be invoked.

¶39

We are of the definite opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in granting interest and computing the same in a petition under Article 226, without adjudicating the

¶40

Patna High Court L.P.A No.337 of 2024 dt.22-10-2024 5/5

¶41

quantum of loss caused to the petitioner by reason of the delay occasioned, which again has to be on sufficient evidence and cannot be agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶42