JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– Heard Counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Sagarmal Bafna (since deceased) applied for 5000 equity shares of Masters Gain 92 and for the said purpose gave a cheque for Rs. 50,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though an application along with the cheque have been deposited on 14th May, 1992 with the Bank of Baroda, U.T.I. Service Centre, Calcutta, the Certificates were not allotted to him nor any communication was made to him. On 11th December, 1992 the father of the petitioner Sri Sagarmal Bafna died. Thereafter, there is no correspondence between the petitioner and the U.T.I. Authorities. In fact nothing has been disclosed in the writ petition. 2. The next correspondence which has been disclosed in the writ petition is a letter dated 12th January, 1999 which was sent by the petitioners through their Advocate to the U.T.I. Authorities. It appears that there was some exchange of correspondence between the petitioner's Advocate and the U.T.I. authorities and the U.T.I. authorities wanted the petitioner to comply with certain formalities and sign certain forms and other things and ultimately it is not in dispute that Certificates were issued and the stand of the U.T.I. authorities are that the petitioners, apart from the Certificates will be entitled to receive all the benefits including dividend as declared by the U.T.I. authorities against the said claim. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that they have received the Certificates and the dividends but they are insisting on payment of interest @ 18% per annum for the period during which the money was held up with the U.T.I. Authorities and the Certificates were not granted to them. 4. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were claiming the said interest under any statutory provision. In support of their claim of interest the petitioners relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of (1) Vijay Singh Nahata v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 Cal. 153 . The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Paragraph-47 of the said judgment which is set out below:–– "It is well settled as I have already indicated that the writ Court is entitled to interfere in contractual obligation where the State action appears to be arbitrary. reported in AIR 1998 Cal. 153 . The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Paragraph-47 of the said judgment which is set out below:–– "It is well settled as I have already indicated that the writ Court is entitled to interfere in contractual obligation where the State action appears to be arbitrary. In my view, the Railways have without any reason withheld payment and they should refund the amount to the petitioner with interest. The Supreme Court in several decisions passed such direction for payment of interest." 5. Learned Counsel for the U.T.I. authorities submitted that the petitioners have received the Certificates including all the dividends and the question of payment of interest was not a condition in respect of the Scheme in question. He further submitted that this is an open ended scheme without any provision for payment of interest. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (2) Union of India & Ors. v. E. Merck (India) reported in 1998 (9) SCC 412 and contended that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled out the question of grant of interest unless there is a statutory provision for such payment of interest. 7. The Court has considered the rival contentions. 8. The decision of the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court which was cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the case of Vijay Singh Nahata was rendered in a case where there was a claim in connection with business transaction between the petitioner who was a Contractor and the railways. In connection with such business transaction where the Contractor has sustained a loss of business, the learned Judge directed payment of interest, inter alia, on the ground that the railways have without any reason withheld payment relating to business transaction of the petitioner. But in the instant case the facts are not identical or even remotely similar. It is a case of the petitioners' investment in a Scheme which does not contemplate payment of interest. Apart from that the petitioners, after 1992, did not enter into any correspondence with the U.T.I. Authorities nor did they make any claim till 1999 which is about seven years thereafter. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to find out who is responsible for the delay. Apart from that the petitioners, after 1992, did not enter into any correspondence with the U.T.I. Authorities nor did they make any claim till 1999 which is about seven years thereafter. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to find out who is responsible for the delay. In such a disputed factual background where there is no statutory provision for payment of interest this Court is unable to pass any order in favour of the petitioners directing payment of interest to the petitioners. 9. Since the petitioners' other grievances have been redressed, no further order need be passed on this writ application. 10. The writ application is, therefore, disposed of. 11. There will be no order as to costs. Let xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on urgent basis.