Dismissed¶39

Santosh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Feb 2025L.P.A/1304/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court dismissed L.P.A No.1304 of 2023 (in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17024 of 2013) on 04-02-2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ; Partha Sarthy, J): no interest payable on the delayed proportionate refund of Rs. 15,55,090/- (out of deposit of Rs. 50,00,251/- made in 2007 for the Chapra Nagar Bus-stand toll contract; refund paid on 21.03.2011) - neither a direction of the Court nor any statutory or rule-based entitlement to interest; the learned Single Judge's finding that not much time was wasted in granting the refund upheld. Keywords: toll collection, Nagar Bus-stand Chapra, Perwana delayed four months, proportionate refund, interest on delayed payment.

What did the court decide?

There was no direction to pay interest to the appellant, nor is such a claim available to him under any statute or rule. ¶35

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1304 of 2023 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17024 of 2013

¶3

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

¶4

Santosh Kumar Singh Son of Late Bireshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Prabhunath Nagar (Tandi), P.S. - Chhapra Muffasil, District Saran at Chhapra.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Transport Secretary, Government of Bihar, Sultan Place, Patna.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶9

The Divisional Commissioner, Saran-cum-the Chairman Regional Transport Authority, Saran at Chhapra.

¶10

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra.

¶11

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saran at Chhapra.

¶12

The Joint Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Regional Transport Authority Saran at Chhapra.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Singh (AAG 13)

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶16

Date : 04-02-2025

¶17

Heard learned Advocates on behalf of the parties.

¶18

The appellant participated in the bid and was

¶19

allotted the contract for collection of toll at Nagar Bus-stand

¶20

in Chapra. However, the Perwana under which he could

¶21

have started collecting toll was given to him after four months. Finding that he had suffered losses because of the

¶22

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1304 of 2023 dt.04-02-2025 2/3

¶23

delayed commencement of toll collecting process, he had approached the authorities for a proportionate refund from Rs. 50,00,251/-, the amount which was deposited by him

¶24

way-back in the year 2007.

¶25

Under the orders of this Court, the

¶26

proportionate refund of Rs. 15,55,090/- was allowed and paid to him on 21.03.2011 i.e. after almost about four years.

¶27

The claim of the appellant is that for that

¶28

amount, interest also should have been paid. In order to buttress his contention he has referred to an order passed by this Court on 18.04.2012 permitting him the liberty to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievances which was not specifically indicated towards seeking interest on the delayed payment.

¶29

Nonetheless, strengthened by the aforenoted

¶30

liberty by this Court, the appellant had approached the authorities for grant of interest for four years on the

¶31

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1304 of 2023 dt.04-02-2025 3/3

¶32

proportionate refund amount which was given to him in the

¶33

year 2011, which stood rejected by a reasoned order.

¶34

We are absolutely satisfied that there was no

¶35

direction to pay interest to him nor is it available to him to claim under any statute or rule in that regard.

¶36

The learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in holding that not much time was wasted in giving him the proportionate refund without even looking at the

¶37

actual reasons for the delayed commencement of the work.

¶38