Max Infotech vs. The State Of Bihar

The present writ application has been filed for the following relief(s):- “a) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding upon the respondent authorities to pay the total bills 2/4 amount Rs. 569274/- which were raised against the work done by the petitioner in respect of work order contained in Memo No. 243 dated 22.02.2011 issued by the District Magistrate-cum- District Election Officer (Panchayat), Darbhanga i.e. Respondent No. 4-whereby and whereunder, petitioner was allotted the work of printing the photo voter list of thirteen blocks in Darbhanga district, constituency-wise, based on the photo electoral roll used in the Assembly Election 2010, for the Three-tier Panchayat General Election, 2011. This included data entry of all columns of new entries related to the preparation of the voter list, deletion, modification/fragmentation, one- sided laser printing of the photo voter list, and two -sided laser printing of the photo voter list. b) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding upon the respondent authorities to pay the interest upon the bill amount at the rate of 18% compound interest per annum from the date of issuance of bills i.e. (i) Bill No. PAN/DAR/029/2010-2011 dated 01.08.2011, amount of Rs. 195223/-, (ii) Bill No. PAN/DAR/030/2010-2011 dated 05.08.2011, amount of Rs. 369427/- and (iii) Bill No. PAN/DAR/039/2011-2012 dated 09.04.2012, amount of Rs. 4624/- till the date of payment in favour of petitioner as the same has been kept pending arbitrarily and illegally for more than 13 3/4 years in the name of paucity/unavailability of funds in this regard. c) For any other relief/reliefs for which, this Hon’ble Court deems fit. d) For the cost of litigation.”

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that, pursuant to the order dated 09.07.2026 passed in the present case, he has made payment of the admissible dues amounting to Rs. 5,46,504/-, after deducting TDS at the rate of 2% and GST at the rate of 2%.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said payment has been made after considerable delay and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest on such payment. He further draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 10 of the writ application, wherein learned counsel for the State has submitted that the reason for the delay in payment was the non-availability of funds and that there was no denial of liability towards the petitioner. Since the delay in payment is attributable to the respondent and the petitioner has suffered on account of such delay, and as it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had duly complied with the requirements to the satisfaction of the 4/4 respondent, this Court has no option but to direct the respondent to pay interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 4% simple interest to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the writ application is allowed.