WP/12990/2002 of Sri Mahdi Ali Khan Sikander, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has claimed payment ofRs.20,86,267/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from therespondents. However, at the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitionerconfined the petitioner’s claim to payment of Rs.26,032-50 paise, whichis admittedly due from and payable by the respondents in pursuance ofsale deed dt.20.10.1995.

It is not necessary for this Court to delve into several events thatpreceded the execution of the sale deed between the petitioner and therespondents. It would only suffice to note that in pursuance of thejudgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.11081 of 1995, Writ AppealNo.733 of 1995 and Contempt Case No.429 of 1995, dt.9.8.1995, theparties to this Writ Petition entered into the transaction of the sale deed referred to above. Clause – 1 of the said sale deed reads as under:

“In consideration of the sum of Rs.18,95,467-50(Rupees Eighteen lakhs ninety five thousand four hundredsixty seven and paise fifty only), hereby paid by the vendee tothe vendors by way of a crossed Demand Draft, drawn infavour of Vendor No.1, and the Vendee agreeing to pay thebalance amount of Rs.26,032-50 (Rupees twenty six thousandthirty two and paise fifty only) after obtaining sanction thereforwithin two weeks of the date of this sale deed, the Vendorshereby execute this sale deed, and the vendors herebyacknowledge receipt of the said sum of Rs.18,95,467-50. TheVendors as owners hereby transfer to the Vendee by way ofsale all the property fully described in the schedule hereto andfor greater clearness delineated on the plan hereto annexed,absolutely and forever.”

As payment of Rs.26,032-50 ps., was not made in accordancewith the above reproduced recital, the petitioner caused legal notice dt.28.12.1996 issued for immediate payment of the said sum along withinterest thereon at 18% per annum from 20.10.1995. In response thereto,respondent No.3 evidently sent reply dt.10.1.1997. With reference to thesaid reply, the petitioner got another notice sent through his Lawyer on5.8.1997, wherein it is mentioned that in his reply dt.10.1.1997respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that cheque is awaited and thatpayment will be made soon. In the legal notice it was stated that ifpayment is not made within one week after receipt of the notice, thepetitioner will be forced to initiate appropriate legal proceedings. As nopayment was forthcoming, the petitioner got another legal noticedt.23.9.1997 calling upon respondent No.3 to make payment with interestat 18% per annum. It appears, for more than five years, no action wastaken by the respondents for payment. However, respondent No.3 brokehis silence in the year 2002 by issuing proceedings dt.13.3.2002addressed to the Commissioner & Director, School Education, AndhraPradesh, Hyderabad, wherein it is inter alia stated that the sum ofRs.26,032-50 ps., is liable to be paid to the petitioner and he requestedthe Commissioner and Director of School Education to grant sanction formaking payment of the said amount. As no further action was takenthereon for payment, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

Conclusion

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3,their liability to pay the sum of Rs.26,032-50 ps., to the petitioner isadmitted. It has been inter alia averred that due to “various reasons” thesaid amount was not paid to the petitioner. It is further maintained thatthe petitioner has to file a civil suit for recovery of the unpaid saleconsideration and the Writ Petition is, therefore, not maintainable.

In my considered opinion, in the absence of any justificationwhatsoever offered by the respondents for non-payment of admittedamount, the petitioner cannot be driven to file a civil suit. As notedhereinabove, the sale deed was executed in pursuance of the orderpassed by this Court and on the basis of a joint memo entered intobetween the parties, which was placed on record in the above mentionedcases before this Court. The respondents being State and its instrumentalities, cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the commitmentmade by them in pursuance of which this Court disposed of the cases. Therefore, I am unable to accept the specious plea of the respondentsthat the petitioner should approach the civil court for recovery of theadmitted amount. In the absence of any dispute as to the petitioner’sentitlement, no triable issue exists to drive the petitioner to the civil court.

With regard to payment of interest, the law is well settled that aperson who is unduly deprived of the payment of money is entitled inequity for interest (See Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited v.Rattanji Ramji[[1]]and Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh[[2]]). As therespondents failed to offer any reason for not paying the admittedamount, the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest at reasonable rate. Inmy opinion, though the market rate is far higher, the respondents beingState and its Officers, I feel that 12% per annum will be reasonable rate ofinterest, which may partially compensate the petitioner for the losssuffered by him on account of withholding of the payment of the admittedamount.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed with the direction tothe respondents to pay the sum of Rs.26,032-50 ps., along with interest atthe rate of 12% per annum from 1.1.1996 till the date of payment. Theabove said amount should be paid within a period of four weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.16138 of2002, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

31.12.2009b n r

______________________

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

[1]AIR 1938 PC 67

[2]AIR 1961 SC 908