The appropriate forum for adjudication of claims for interest on delayed payments should be approached by the concerned parties, and any decision on such claims should be made in accordance with the law without being influenced by any observation in the present judgment and order.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Banerjee, J. - These two appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated February 20, 2020, whereby two writ applications filed by the appellants being W.P. 2992 (W) of 2020 and W.P. 2995(W) of 2020, involving similar points of fact and law, were disposed of by granting liberty to the writ petitioners to take forward their claim for interest to an appropriate forum.

2. The appellants claim to have participated in a tender process initiated by the Bidhannagar Municipality (presently Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation, and in short 'BMC') in the year 2015. Two work orders were issued in favour of the appellants. They claim to have completed the work to the satisfaction of BMC in the year 2015 itself. However, their bills were not paid nor the security deposit and earnest money refunded. They made representations to the appropriate authorities which were in vain.

Accordingly, they approached the writ Court by filing two writ petitions being W.P. No. 29853(W) of 2017 and W.P. No. 29856 (W) of 2017. The primary prayer in such writ petitions was for a direction on the respondents to disburse the bills of the writ petitioners including security money along with 18 per cent interest for the work which had been completed on June 29, 2015.

3. By two similar orders dated January 5, 2018, the two writ petitions were disposed of by directing the Commissioner of BMC to consider the representations filed by the writ petitioners and dispose of the same within 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order, if necessary after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, by recording proper reasons.

4. Pursuant to such order, the Commissioner, BMC, passed a reasoned order holding 'that the writ petitioner was not entitled to receive payment for the work purportedly executed by him without the authentic completion certificate from the concerned executive engineer'.

5. The orders of the Commissioner, BMC were challenged by the appellants herein by filing two writ petitions which were disposed of by two similar orders dated March 5, 2019 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The operative portion of such orders reads as follows:-

'In such view of the matter even on the face of the records there appears to be no good reason why the writ petitioners have been deprived of its original claims in terms of running/final account bill amounting to Rs. 59,32,024/- including the security money.

Since the amount of the bill is dated October, 2015 and since the reasoned order at annexure P/6 was passed on September 7, 2018, I am not minded to award interest to the petitioners. In the event that the respondent Corporation more particularly the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 make payment of the said amount along with security deposit within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order, no interest shall be payable. In the event of any default in addition to proceedings for contempt of Court, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum (simple) from today till the date of recovery. The writ petition is allowed as above.'

6. The appellants say that within the time period indicated in the aforesaid order, the respondent authorities paid the bill amounts including security deposit. However, neither the earnest money nor any interest was paid by the respondents.

7. The appellants thereafter made a representation dated July 10, 2019, to the Commissioner, BMC, praying for refund of the earnest money as also interest for delayed payment of the bill amount and earnest money. Such representation not having been considered, the appellants approached this Court a third time by filing W.P. No. 15669(W) of 2019 and a similar writ petition in respect of the other work order. The said writ petition being W.P. No. 15669(W) of 2019 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by an order dated August 14, 2019 by directing the Commissioner, BMC, 'to consider and take a decision in accordance with law in respect of the pet