Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 111. 2001 made in W.P.No.17476 of 2001, the Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Raffles, Chennai 6, has filed Writ Appeal No.537 of 2002 and the writ petitioner has filed Writ Appeal No.2008 of 2002 for the enhancement of interest rate awarded by the learned single Judge. 2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant/respondent as well as Mr. A. Sivaji learned counsel for respondent/writ petitioner. 3. Since the issue involved in these appeals is regarding payment of interest at 6% per annum from the date of successful winning of the lottery, viz., in May, 1988, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to traverse all the factual details as stated in the affidavit filed before the learned single Judge. According to the petitioner, he purchased three lottery tickets from Sri Eswari Lucky Centre on 25.05.1988 and came to know that one of the lottery tickets purchased by him got the first prize, i.e., Rs.25 lakhs. Thereafter, he deposited the prize winning ticket with the State Bank of Travancore, Pooyapalli Branch on 27.05.1988. The Bank, in turn, obtained necessary claim from the then Director of Tamil Nadu Raffles. The necessary form was also executed by the petitioner. He also deposited the counterfoil on 13.06.1988 with the said Bank. .4. According to the petitioner, he is the owner and holder of the prize winning ticket and the counterfoil. As per Rule 36(A) of the Tamil Nadu Raffles Rules, 1976, the holder of the prize winning ticket shall be entitled to claim the prize amount and the same cannot be made without production of the prize winning ticket as proof under any circumstance. The petitioner satisfied all the conditions and according to him, he is entitled to the prize money. While so, he came to know that one Ulaganathan filed a suit in O.S.No.220 of 1988 before Principal District Munsifs Court, Srivilliputhur seeking declaration that he (the plaintiff-Ulaganathan) is the true and lawful owner in respect of the prize winning ticket. The petitioner got himself impleaded in the said suit as third defendant. Private complaint was also lodged by the said Ulaganthan before the concerned Judicial Magistrates Court against the petitioner and one Muneswaran. The petitioner got himself impleaded in the said suit as third defendant. Private complaint was also lodged by the said Ulaganthan before the concerned Judicial Magistrates Court against the petitioner and one Muneswaran. Subsequent to the order of this Court in CRP.No.47 of 1994, the plaintiff in the said suit filed Pauper O.P.No.7 of 1991 before the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur and subsequently, it was taken on file as O.S.No.278 of 1996. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed on 18.06.1999 and thereafter, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.3647 of 1992 before this Court praying for direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to pay the prize amount of Rs.25 lakhs in respect of the lottery ticket and Rs.2.5 lakhs for the counterfoil. In that writ petition, the petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee or of property subject to the discretion of the concerned authority, viz., Director of Lotteries, Tamilnadu Raffles. 5. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner made a representation to the said authority followed by legal notice. According to the petitioner, in spite of his representations, the authority concerned neither deposited nor paid the amount, which necessitated him to file WP.No.17476 of 2001 for appropriate direction to the respondent for payment of the amount with interest at 18% per annum from 27.05.1988. The learned Judge, who heard the writ petition, after finding that there was no interim order in the suits against the payment of the amount to the writ petitioner and in any event, the Director of Raffles could have deposited the amount in a Government, Corporation or Nationalised Bank, and in such case, the petitioner could have got the benefit of interest accrued, issued direction for payment of the prize amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of successful winning of the lottery i.e., May,1988. In the same order, the learned Judge further directed that the amount with interest should be paid within a period of 45 days, failing which the amount would carry 12% interest thereafter till the date of payment. Questioning the direction relating to interest, the Commissioner of Raffles, filed Writ Appeal No.537 of 2002 and for the enhancement of rate of interest, the writ petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.2008 of 2002. .6. Questioning the direction relating to interest, the Commissioner of Raffles, filed Writ Appeal No.537 of 2002 and for the enhancement of rate of interest, the writ petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.2008 of 2002. .6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/respondent by drawing our attention to various dates and events commencing from 25.05.1988 ending with payment of prize money i.e., on 26.09.2003, submitted that there was no delay on the part of the Government or the concerned authority, but due to dispute with regard to entitlement of the prize money as well as non-compliance of the directions of this Court on the part of the writ petitioner, the matter got delayed and hence, the learned Judge is not justified in awarding interest. He relied on a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court reported in Mirza Javed Murtaza vs. U.P. Financial Corporation [AIR 1983 Allahabad 234]. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that even after disposal of the suits, the money was not either deposited or paid to the petitioner and because of the delay on the part of the authority, the learned Judge is justified in awarding interest, and prayed for the enhancement of rate of interest. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Admittedly, there was a dispute with regard to the ownership and entitlement of the prize money and suits were filed. Even thereafter, viz., after dismissal of the suits, directions were issued by this Court to the writ petitioner for fulfilling certain conditions for settlement of the prize money and according to the appellant/respondent, those conditions were not fulfilled in time. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner disputes the same. In order to appreciate the stand taken by both sides, we feel it relevant to advert to the particulars furnished in the form of dates and events by the Special Government Pleader, which are as follows: 10. The above mentioned details clearly show that the appellant is in no way responsible for not settling the amount within reasonable time. It is also not in dispute that there is no provision in the Tamilnadu Raffles Rules, 1976 for payment of interest for belated settlement of prize money. The above mentioned details clearly show that the appellant is in no way responsible for not settling the amount within reasonable time. It is also not in dispute that there is no provision in the Tamilnadu Raffles Rules, 1976 for payment of interest for belated settlement of prize money. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Mirza Javed Murtaza case, cited supra, relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader. With regard to claim of interest without a specific agreement and in the absence of statutory provision or guidelines or custom or usage, the Division Bench has concluded, "The law with regard to claim for interest is also by now well settled. The claim for interest may be sustained only in cases where the same is claimed either in terms of the agreement itself or when it is permitted by some law or custom or usage having the force of law. Interest may be awarded for the period prior to the date of the institution of the suit, if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at fixed rate, or, if interest is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law, or under the provisions of any substantive law entitling the plaintiff to recover interest, as for instances, under S.30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under S.61 of the Sale of Goods Act or Interest Act. Interest can be awarded if there was a debt or a sum certain payable at a certain time or otherwise by virtue of some written contract and there must have been a demand in writing, stating that interest will be demanded from the date of the demand (see Thawardas Pherumal .vs. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 468 and Union of India vs. Rallia Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1685 ). In the absence of any usage or contract, express or implied, or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest, the court cannot award interest by way of damages caused on account of wrongful detention of money." 11. In the absence of any usage or contract, express or implied, or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest, the court cannot award interest by way of damages caused on account of wrongful detention of money." 11. In the light of the factual details of our case, which we have already narrated in the earlier paragraphs and of the fact that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Raffles Rules, 1976, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the above said case. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the learned Judge is not justified in awarding interest either 6% or 12% for alleged defaulted payment. Equally, we are not in agreement with the observation made by the learned Judge that the appellant/respondent could have deposited the amount in Government, Corporation or Nationalised Bank pending various proceedings. It is not in dispute that there will not be any difficulty in getting the amount from Government. In such circumstances, there is no need to deposit the amount when admittedly, there were prolonged proceedings pending initially before the civil court and thereafter before this Court. In the facts and circumstances and materials placed, we are satisfied that there is no wilful delay on the part of the appellant/respondent in making the payment of the prize money after declaration that the writ petitioner is prize winner. Under these circumstances, the order of the learned single Judge dated 111. 2001 made in W.P.No.17476 of 2001, in so far as it relates to the payment of interest is set aside; consequently, W.A.No.537 of 2002 is allowed. In view of our conclusion in WA.No.537 of 2002, we find no merit in the claim made by the writ petitioner for the enhancement of rate of interest. Accordingly, W.A.No.2008 of 2002, is dismissed. No costs in both the writ appeals.