Judgment ( 1. ) PRIME Minister National Relief Fund (for short pmnrf) through its secretary has filed this writ appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh High court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2005 against the order dated 25-7-07 passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1196 of 2006, for setting aside the order of payment of interest and to expunge the observation made in Para 1 of the impugned order. ( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 made request seeking financial assistance from the PMNRF for heart surgery of his daughter. Requisite documents were received in the appellant office on 8-6-2000 and on 20-6-2000, the financial assistance of Rs. 20,000/- to partially defray the expenses incurred in the surgery/treatment was sanctioned and a Cheque no. 041485 dated 8-8-2000 for Rs. 20,000/- was forwarded to Dean Gandhi medical College/hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. On 4-12-2000 appellant office received a fax message from Dean Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal that they have not received the cheque. Thereafter, another cheque dated 10-1-01 drawn on Central Bank of India, Janpath, New Delhi was forwarded to Dean Gandhi medical College, Bhopal along with letter dated 10-1-01 and it appears that this letter came back to the appellant undelivered. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 never contacted to appellant till 16-8-05 and ultimately filed writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1196/06. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge allowed the petition, made certain observations and directed that sanctioned amount be paid to the petitioner along with interest at normal rate as notified by the Reserve Bank of India within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The amount has been paid but against the direction of payment of interest and observations, pmnrf has filed this writ appeal. ( 3. ) SHRI Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned Asstt. The amount has been paid but against the direction of payment of interest and observations, pmnrf has filed this writ appeal. ( 3. ) SHRI Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for the appellant submitted that there was no mistake on part of the appellant PMNRF office, as immediately on receiving of request for financial assistance along with documents on 8-6-2000 the amount was sanctioned on 20-6-2000 and cheque was forwarded to the Dean, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and on receipt of information that they have not received the cheque, another cheque was issued and forwarded to Dean Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal along with the letter dated 10-1-01 but it was returned back undelivered, therefore, it was argued that since the appellant was not responsible for any delay either in sanctioning the amount or in releasing the amount to the respondent No. 1 who was in need of money for surgery of his daughter, therefore, interest ought not to have been allowed on the aforesaid amount and the direction of payment of interest is wholly unwarranted. It was further submitted that the observations made against aforesaid PMNRF were also uncalled for, they be expunged and if they are not expunged, they will create chaos and put the appellant in an embarrassing situation. ( 4. ) SHRI Lokendra Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that he was in need of money for operation of Ku. Akansha aged 12 years, who was suffering from serious heart ailment, therefore, her case was referred to Gandhi Medical College and Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal for treatment and she underwent congenital heart surgery. So far as the payment of amount is concerned, he has admitted that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been paid to him. His only submission was that since he was poor person and was not aware with the procedure to be followed in filing the petition in the High Court, therefore, he could not file the petition for five years. ( 5. ) SHRI Brijesh Shrama, learned Government Advocate submitted that though there is no reason on record as to why the aforesaid letter dated 10-1-2001 was not delivered to the Dean while it bears the correct address of the dean and earlier also the cheque issued was not received in the office of Dean, but that may be because of the postal problem. ( 6. ( 6. ) SHRI Vinod Kumar Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General and Shri brijesh Sharma, Government Advocate both submitted that the P. M. N. R. F. has provided help to the needy persons. Fund is being managed by a trust, bureaucratic machinery is not involved in regulating the business of the trust and there is no red-tapism in the matter of implementation of their activities in sanctioning fund to the needy persons. ( 7. ) FIRST of all, we have considered the object behind establishing the pmnrf. From the material on record, it is clear that the same has been created with a pious object to meet the natural calamities like flood, fire, earthquake and to provide help to people in distress and also to provide medical help to the needy people of this country, which is in the larger interest of the nation. PMNRF is constituted by voluntary contribution and donation of the public and no allocation has been made from the consolidated fund of India. It is strictly a discretionary fund of Prime Minister. Earlier, the Division Bench of this Court has already held that no guidelines can be laid down for granting amount from pmnrf as the disbursement is made at the sole discretion of Prime Minister. The Bombay High Court has appreciated the establishment of PMNRF and held that it can not be a subject matter of review by the Courts as it is entirely a discretionary fund. Even no question or information on Prime Ministers national Relief Fund was admitted in both houses. In view of this fact that it is a discretionary fund and is not being audited by Comptroller and Accountant general of India, therefore, we are also of the opinion that the same is not subject matter of any review by the Courts. We have also perused the record from which it is clear that the fund is being managed by a trust and is not being managed by the bureaucratic machinery and there is nothing on record to hold that any red-tapism is involved in the matter of implementation of the funds or the funds are not reaching the persons for whom the funds have been created or the scheme of fund is not being implemented properly. ( 8. ( 8. ) IN the writ petition neither any such allegations as aforesaid, were made nor any material was produced that PMNRF is under mismanagement or is not functioning properly, or there is any red-tapism or being managed by bureaucratic machinery or the funds are not reaching the needy persons. On the contrary, looking to the object and prompt action taken in sanctioning the amount thrice, it is held that the same is being managed efficiently in the larger interest of public and help is also being provided to needy persons promptly and satisfactorily, which is a matter of appreciation. Therefore, we hold that the observations made by learned Single Judge are wholly unjustified and without any foundation or material on record. It appears that the observations have not been made particularly about the PMNRF, but they are general observations about the Government Schemes. From the record it is also clear that this fund is not part of any Government scheme or business of the Government of India, and as stated supra such a fund therefore is also not subjected to audit by C. A. and Accountant General of India or judicial review. Therefore, the observations made in Para 1 of the impugned order are liable to be set aside and expunged. Accordingly, they are set aside and expunged. ( 9. ) AS regards the direction about payment of interest, in our considered view, in such cases of discretionary grant, interest cannot be awarded. The interest can only be awarded in case where some debt is payable or amount is legally payable to a party to fulfill legal obligations. In a case where fund is created by voluntary contribution and donation by public, which is purely a discretionary fund at the discretion of Prime Minister and the amount of help is sanctioned to the needy person, the interest cannot be claimed or awarded. More so, in this case, we have seen that there was no fault or delay on the part of the appellant-PMNRF for releasing the amount. Firstly, on receiving the documents on 8-6-2000 the amount was sanctioned on 20-6-2000 and was forwarded but unfortunately due to postal mistake it could not be received and thereafter on receiving the fax message the amount was again sanctioned and another cheque was issued on 10-1-2001 but the same again came back undelivered. Firstly, on receiving the documents on 8-6-2000 the amount was sanctioned on 20-6-2000 and was forwarded but unfortunately due to postal mistake it could not be received and thereafter on receiving the fax message the amount was again sanctioned and another cheque was issued on 10-1-2001 but the same again came back undelivered. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the appellant-Office in sanctioning the amount. On the contrary no attempt was made by the respondent to make any report nor he approached and after five years he filed petition directly in the Court. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there was no mistake on the part of the appellant-Office in releasing the amount, thus they are not liable for payment of interest. It is submitted that the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, as directed by the Court, has already been paid by the appellant to the respondent, therefore, the direction issued regarding payment of interest is also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside. ( 10. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 25-7-2007, so far as it relates to payment of interest is set aside and the observations made in Para 1 of the order are also set aside and expunged with no order as to costs.