Moti Lal Sonkar vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

By this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for interest on Rs. 10,50,000/- deposited by him as an auction purchaser of the property of Sri Ghanshyam Das Mishra sold in pursuance to the orders passed by the Collector recovering the amount assessed to be misappropriated as the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Rajapur, District Banda.

The removal of Sri Ghanshyam Das Mishra as Chairman of the Town Area Committee was set aside by this Court. After the judgment, the District Magistrate decided to recover the amount. The proceeding of auction was stayed in writ petition No. 7314 of 2003. By judgment and order dated 13.10.2009. we allowed the writ petition with the finding that the principles of natural justice were violated. The District Magistrate has now given opportunity to Sri Ghanshyam Das Mishra before quantifying the loss. A direction was issued to the District Magistrate, making it open to him, to cause an inquiry into the loss caused to the Town Area in accordance with the procedure provided under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to him.

During the course of hearing, Sri Raja Singh learned Counsel appearing for Sri Moti Lal Sonkar, the present Petitioner (auction purchaser), requested that since no benefit has been received by him as auction purchaser, the amount deposited by him may be returned. We passed the orders accordingly.

Now by this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for award of interest over the refunded amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- with effect from the date of auction i.e. 7.2.2003 till the date of refund i.e. 17.2.2010.

We do not find any good ground to consider the prayer for interest on the amount deposited with the State Government, and refunded to the Petitioner. It is true that the Petitioner could not get the benefit of the amount deposited for six years on account of interim order but that the Petitioner through his counsel voluntarily made a statement to return the money. There was no prayer at the time of hearing of the writ petition to award interest. The Petitioner was taking a chance. He could have either applied for withdrawal of the amount when the interim orders were passed, or requested for deposit of the amount in the interest bearing fixed deposit in any nationalized bank. He took a chance in the litigation in which he did not succeed, and thereafter made a statement on his own, to return the amount. We cannot saddle state with penalty of interest in such case.

The writ petition is dismissed.