Manjula Chellur, C.J.
District Sports Council is before this Court aggrieved by judgment of learned Single Judge. Writ petitioners approached learned Single Judge seeking following reliefs:
“(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to complete the construction of rooms bearing Nos.BF1, AG 5 and AG 6 in the shopping complex in the Football Stadium at Kottappady in Malappuram Town and to handover possession of those rooms to the petitioners within a period to be fixed by this Honourable Court.
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to give back the amount deposited by the petitioners with interest at the rate fixed by this Hon'ble Court within a period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and
(c) pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.”
2. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner was successful tenderer so far as three shop rooms constructed by first respondent Sports Council after participating in an open tender. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.25 lakhs came to be deposited as security deposit as per terms and conditions of tender. However, according to writ petitioner, appellant Sports Council was not in a position to complete construction of shop rooms and hand over possession of the same. Therefore, very purpose of participating in tender was defeated. According to petitioner, Municipality raised objections so far as approved plan and not numbering the building. However, matter was referred to Government and only after interference of Government certain violations were waived. By that time, petitioner could not wait for completion of shop rooms by Sports Council, therefore, he had to make alternate arrangements by investing money again somewhere else. Therefore, during pendency of writ petition he submitted that he is not interested to have possession of shops in question. Having regard to fact that possession of building was not handed over within reasonable time even after lawyers notice was issued, appellant Sports Council has to return deposit amount. Accordingly, security deposit amount of Rs.25 lakhs was directed to be refunded to writ petitioners along with interest at 10% from 6.9.2012, last date of deposit.
3. By way of review, date of payment of interest was reviewed as 14.11.2012 instead of 6.9.2012. Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court. According to appellant Sports Council, none of the tender terms and conditions envisaged payment of interest and therefore question of payment of interest would not arise. On the other hand, according to him, there is a specific clause which says under no circumstances interest is payable. Therefore, according to learned counsel for appellant, direction to pay interest at 10% is arbitrary which deserves to be set aside. According to respondent/writ petitioners, as a matter of fact, first prayer in writ petition was to issue a direction to respondents to complete construction of shop rooms within a reasonable time. When the same was not possible, he had to borrow money and invest it for alternate accommodation. Therefore, he has sustained loss on account of the same and his money i.e., 25 lakhs is lying with appellant Sports Council. It is not in dispute that way back in 2012, this amount came to be deposited by writ petitioner which was made use by Sports Council for completing construction purpose. Having diverted said funds for construction purpose, now it is not open to them to say that they are not liable to pay any interest. However, we are of the opinion, under the above circumstances, 6% would be just and proper rate of interest on 25 lakhs from 14.11.2012 till the date of payment.
Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
MANJULA CHELLUR, Chief Justice jes P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge