A. K. SIKRI ( 1 ) THIS case has a chequered history. However, in view of the fact that controversy left now is in a narrow compass, it is not necessary to state facts of the case in detail. Only most relevant and material facts would be noticed. ( 2 ) SOME time in the year 1978, Delhi development Authority (DDA) allotted approximately 700 flats with servant quarters and car garages in bloc F, H, K and N in Malviya nagar Extension (Saket) under the first self- financing scheme of installment payment basis. However, when 5th and final installment was demanded some time in December, 1978, DDA increased price of the units by adding to the original cost equalization and ad hoc charges . The petitioner Association filed a civil writ petition being CWP No. 1304/ 1981 challenging the addition of equalization and ad hoc charges. This writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 13. 12. 1984 directing DDA to delete equalization and ad hoc charges. It may be mentioned that during pendency of this writ petition, this Court passed orders directing allottees of the flats (members of the petitioners association) to deposit the said equalization and ad hoc charges as well. ( 3 ) AFTER the aforesaid judgment, members of the petitioner Association became entitled to refund of this amount. However, DDA challenged the aforesaid judgment of this court by filing Special Leave to Appeal. By order dated 30. 09. 1985, Special Leave to appeal was granted and on stay application filed by DDA, the Supreme Court passed the following order: - "there shall be an order of stay pending disposal of the appeals in respect of the order of the High Court directing the delhi Development Authority to refund the amounts to the concerned respondents. If ultimately it is found that the Delhi Development Authority is liable to refund any amount to any of the respondents, it shall refund such amount along with interest at the rate at which the Delhi Development authority levies interest on the amounts due to it from the defaulters. Similarly if any of the respondents is found liable to pay amount to the Delhi development Authority, they shall be liable to pay it along with interest at the same rate. Similarly if any of the respondents is found liable to pay amount to the Delhi development Authority, they shall be liable to pay it along with interest at the same rate. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned counsel for the respondents says that the Court may direct that there shall be a first charge on the properties in question so far as the amounts due from the respondents are concerned. There shall be such a charge. " ( 4 ) ON grant of SLP, it became Civil Appeal no. 4402 of 1985, which came up for hearing some time in November, 1996 and after hearing the matter, the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal of DDA vide judgment dated November 28, 1996. ( 5 ) IT may be noticed that while granting SLP and staying operation of the judgment of this Court by Order dated 30. 09. 1985, it was noted that if ultimately DDA is liable to refund any amount to any of the respondents, it shall refund such amount along with interest at the rate at which DDA levies interest on the amounts due to it from the defaulters. However while dismissing appeal of the DDA, no specific directions were given by the supreme Court in this behalf. When members of the petitioner Association were neither refunded the said amount nor paid interest thereon, they filed contempt petitions being cp (C) Nos. 228-229/98 in the Supreme court and vide Order dated 07. 04. 1998, the said contempt petitions were dismissed as withdrawn observing that the petitioners may, if so advised, resort to their ordinary civil remedies. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed. ( 6 ) AS noted above, the allottees of these flats were not even refunded excess amount paid in the form of equalization and ad hoc charges even after disposal of appeal by the supreme Court. However, pursuant to interim orders passed in this writ petition, respondent dda has refunded the said excess amount. The only question, which needs to be determined, is as to whether the members of the petitioner Association are entitled to any interest on the aforesaid amount refunded to the allottees belatedly. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of and relying upon the Order dated 30. 09. 1985, submits that as per the Order, dda was liable to refund the amount along with interest. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of and relying upon the Order dated 30. 09. 1985, submits that as per the Order, dda was liable to refund the amount along with interest. On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the Order dated 30. 09. 1985 was only an interim order and even the Supreme Court did not make any directions for payment of interest while dismissing the appeal and the contempt petitions filed by the petitioner thereafter were also dismissed. ( 8 ) IT is true that the Supreme Court in its final Order dated November 28, 1996 while dismissing the appeal did not make any directions for payment of interest. There may be some force in the contention of learned counsel for DDA that if DDA is forced to pay interest w. e. f. 1985, the interest liability would be colossus. However, there is no explanation as to what was the reason for not refunding the amount of equalization and ad hoc charges after dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme court, as on dismissal of the said appeal, the judgment of this Court had attained finality and, as per which, this amount became payable to the allottees of the flats in question. ( 9 ) NOT only this, even for refund of the said amount of equalization and ad hoc charges, the petitioner had to file the present writ petition and this amount has been paid to the allottees only after interim orders were passed to this effect by the Court in the writ petition. ( 10 ) TAKING equitable view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the Interest of justice would be sub-served if DDA is directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum w. e. f. 01. 12. 1996 till the date the excess amount was refunded to each allottee. Interest shall be calculated at the aforesaid rate and paid to members of the petitioner Association within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this Order.