JUDGMENT 1. - Initially the writ petition was filed seeking various directions, but during the pendency of the writ petition and in the changed circumstances, the petitioner's relief remains limited only to the claim of interest over the amount retained by the respondents. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in pursuance to the notice dated 24-9-92 issued by the respondents, an auction of royalty collection contract for villages Balotra, Jasol, Khed and Tilwada in district Barmer was held and the petitioner was the highest bidder and he deposited 1/4th amount. i.e., Rs. 92,750/- in the Office of the respondent No. 3 on 30-3-93. As there was some dispute, it was re-auctioned on 20-9-94. Again the petitioner remained the highest bidder, however, it was not approved in his favour and ultimately it was not awarded to him. The respondents refunded the amount deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 92,750/- in March, 1995. As the other issues are given-up at this stage, Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the said amount from 30-3-93 to 31-3-95. 3. Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned counsel for the respondents, has opposed it only on the ground that as the statute does not provide for award of interest if money is retained like this, the petitioner cannot claim interest over the amount refunded. 4. In Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Kota, AIR 1981 SC 1887 , the majority view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that interest is ordinarily claimed from the person who has withheld the payment of any payable amount by him and is always calculated at the prescribed rate on the basis of the actual amount withheld and the extent of delay in paying it and in fact such interest is compensatory in nature". 5. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, which was given while interpreting the provisions of Section 11-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. C.T.O, AIR 1994 SC 2397 , on interpretation of the said provisions but the fact remains that the interest is only compensatory in character for withholding some one's due. In Mahesh Chandra Bansal v. Krishan Swaroop Singhal, (1997) 10 SCC 681 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, interpreting the provisions of Section 34 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that pendente lite interest is to be paid at a reasonable and fair rate which should be 12% per annum. 6. The Supreme Court, in G.T.C. Industry Ltd. v. Union of India, (1998) 3 SCC 376 , has held that if amount has erroneously been refunded to an assessee under the order of the Court and as his writ petition was ultimately dismissed, he is liable to pay the interest and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was directed to pay the interest @ 12% per annum. 7. An identical case was considered by this Court in Elite Building Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The Rajasthan Housing Board, 1997 WLC (Raj) UC 127 , wherein the petitioner therein had deposited 25/- of the bid amount and his bid was finally disapproved by the authorities. After considering the facts and circumstances, this Court directed the authorities to refund the bid amount with 12% interest. 8. In the instant case, the respondents have withheld the money for sufficiently unreasonable period. There can be no justification for inaction for such a long period by the respondents. If the bid given by the petitioner was not acceptable to the respondents, the statutory authorities were supposed to act reasonably and fairly within a reasonable period. No party can be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. (Vide G.S. Lamba v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 604 and T. Sriniwasan v. T. Varulakshmi, (1998) 3 SCC 112 . ) 9. The State or State instrumentality, which represent the community as a whole, has no right to enrich itself by deliberately retaining the property of any of its member without any reason without providing adequate compensation for it. (Vide Narain Das Jain v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, (1991) 4 SCC 212 . ) It is a matter of common knowledge that money loses its value every day. "After all money is what money buys. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling with rising inflation, the delayed payment may. lose all charms and utility. ( Vide K. Krishna Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector, AIR 1988 SC 2123 ). "After all money is what money buys. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling with rising inflation, the delayed payment may. lose all charms and utility. ( Vide K. Krishna Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector, AIR 1988 SC 2123 ). It is in such circumstances, the submission of the respondents that interest is not payable, is unwarranted and uncalled for. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the respondents had withheld the money of the petitioner for unreasonable period of two years, the respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioner @ 12% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 92,750/- for a period of two years and further to pay interest at the same rate on the said amount of interest within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment with the respondents. 11. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.Ordered accordingly. *******