ORDER 1. THE APPELLANT HEREIN ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN WHEREUNDER THE APPELLANT UNDERTOOK TO SUPPLY NATURAL GAS TO THE RESPONDENTS AT THE RATE OF RS 1800 PER TMC FOR MANUFACTURE OF FERTILIZERS AND RS 2950 PER TMC FOR MANUFACTURE OF NON-FERTILIZERS. ON 21-12-1983, THE RESPONDENTS FILED A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION CHALLENGING THE PRICE FIXED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN FOR SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS. THE HIGH COURT, WHILE ENTERTAINING THE WRIT PETITION, ISSUED AN INTERIM ORDER PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE REQUIRED TO PAY THE PRICE AT THE RATE OF RS 1350 PER TMC AND RS 2400 PER TMC DEPENDING UPON THE END USE OF THE PRODUCT AS AN INTERIM MEASURE. THE HIGH COURT FURTHER DIRECTED THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN AS A CONDITION FOR SUPPLY OF GAS TO FURNISH A BANK GUARANTEE FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICES. IT WAS ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE BANK GUARANTEE WOULD BE KEPT ALIVE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION OF CLAIM OF INTEREST WAS LEFT TO BE DETERMINED. IN COMPLIANCE THEREOF, THE RESPONDENTS FURNISHED A BANK GUARANTEE FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT BETWEEN THE PRICE FIXED BY THE HIGH COURT AND THE PRICE PAYABLE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE APPELLANT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE WRIT PETITION CAME UP FOR HEARING WHICH WAS DISMISSED. AFTER DISMISSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION, THE APPELLANT HEREIN MADE AN ORAL PRAYER TO THE COURT FOR GRANT OF INTEREST, BUT THE SAME WAS REFUSED. IT IS AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2. WE HAVE HEARD MR B. SEN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT. HE URGED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE DIFFERENCE OF THE AMOUNT BETWEEN THE PRICE FIXED BY THE HIGH COURT AND THE PRICE WHICH WAS PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION HE CITED A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN ONGC V. ASSN. OF NATURAL GAS CONSUMING INDUSTRIES1. IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL, THERE WAS A RECITAL IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO INTEREST AT THE DELAYED PAYMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH RECITAL IN THE AGREEMENT. OF NATURAL GAS CONSUMING INDUSTRIES1. IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL, THERE WAS A RECITAL IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO INTEREST AT THE DELAYED PAYMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH RECITAL IN THE AGREEMENT. GRANT OF INTEREST IS DISCRETIONARY WITH THE COURT AND THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION HAD NOT CHOSEN TO GRANT ANY INTEREST TO THE APPELLANT. 3. FOR THAT REASON, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL. IT FAILS AND IS, ACCORDINGLY; DISMISSED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.