Judgment :- 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by M/s. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., represented by its Secretary and the respondent is the Managing Director of the State Express Transport Corporation Limited, Chennai. This Contempt Petition arises out of the order passed by this Honourable High Court in W.P. No.356609 of 2003 dated 12. 2003. .2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Co-operative Society formed for the benefit of the welfare of the members who are all employees of the State Express Transport Corporation who is the respondent herein. The object of the society is to borrow funds to be utilized for loans to members, in the process, deposits are collected from members and loans are granted for the members for various purposes and the loan amounts are repayable in monthly instalments. The member employees are to give consent to the respondent-Corporation for deducting the loan instalments from the salary. The society is to send a statement on 25th of every month containing the details from the amounts to be deducted form each member employee and based on the statement, the respondent-Corporation should deduct the amount from the salaries of the member employees every month on the date of payment. The deducted amount from the salary of all the employees to be sent to the society along with the statement on or before 14th of every month. In the said process, as the respondent failed to make the payment of the amount which was deducted form the salary of the employees from the month of July, 2003, the petitioner-Society was forced to file W.P.No.35609 of 2003 praying for a direction to the respondent not to withhold the amount deducted for more than 11 days from the date of deduction and also for a direction to pay the amount already recovered and not paid. On 112. 2003, an order was passed by this Honourable Court in the said Writ Petition as follows: ."Whatever arrears is due to the petitioner society as on 312. 2003, after giving credit to the remittance already made, shall be paid by the respondent in any event not later that 33. 2004. On 112. 2003, an order was passed by this Honourable Court in the said Writ Petition as follows: ."Whatever arrears is due to the petitioner society as on 312. 2003, after giving credit to the remittance already made, shall be paid by the respondent in any event not later that 33. 2004. The respondent is directed to deduct from the salary of each member (borrowers) commencing from the month of January, 2004, when the payment of salary is made and remit the deducted amount to the credit of respective members in the petitioner-Society within 14 days from the date of such deduction." .3. Even after the said order by this Honourable High Court, as the respondent did not comply with the said direction, the petitioner filed a Contempt Application in Cont.P.No.293 of 2005 and it was closed on 27. 2005 with a direction that the amount due for the month of April 2005 and the entire amount for the months from May 2005 till July 2005 should be paid on or before 30.9.2005. It appears that the said amount was paid on 210. 2005. Again as the respondent started committing default from the month of August, 2005, another Contempt Petition was filed in Cont.P.No.110 of 2006 and the prayer was made for a direction to the respondent to pay the amount of Rs.2,46,37,809/- including interest of Rs.1,06,03,900/-at 14% fro the belated payments. The said Contempt Petition was closed on 211. 2007, as the payments of principal amount have been made in the mean time. Thereafter, though the respondent paid the amount which was withheld, again committed default in making the regular payment and a sum of Rs.1,31,73,6801-was due up to 8. 2008. Therefore, the petitioner preferred the third Contempt Petition demanding payment stating that the respondent had committed contempt by withholding a sum of Rs.1,31,73,680/-along with interest at Rs.55,42,367/-. This Contempt Application came up before this Court on 20.8.2008 and thereafter it has been pending for reporting compliance. 4. The respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated 21. 2009. In the counter affidavit, the respondent herein tendered unconditional apology to this Court. It has also stated in the counter affidavit that the amount deducted form the salary of the members has been remitted to the petitioners society up to December 2008. It has been further stated in the affidavit that only due to financial crisis, the delayed payments are made. It has also stated in the counter affidavit that the amount deducted form the salary of the members has been remitted to the petitioners society up to December 2008. It has been further stated in the affidavit that only due to financial crisis, the delayed payments are made. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that in view of the prevailing financial position, the Corporation was not in a position to make any payment other than the recovered amount. 5. Mr. S. Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner admitted that the deducted amount as mentioned in the counter affidavit has been paid to the society by the respondent and even for the period up to July, 2009, cheques have been issued for the amount deducted in the salary of the members, be the interest accrued has not been paid by the respondent till date. .6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the society is suffering very much by the long delayed payments by the Transport Corporation and as such the society is incurring heavy loss. In spite of the direction by this Court to make the payments within 14 days from the date of deduction, the continuous and enormous delay amounts to contempt by the respondent. The society cannot be pressurized every time to approach this Court for the payment which they are entitled. The statutory requirement under Section 60(2) of the Multi State Societies Act, 2002, for the respondent is to pay the amount so deducted to the petitioners Society within 14 days from the date on which deduction has been made. The non-compliance of the statutory requirements in spite of the direction by this Honourable High Court not only causes heavy loss to the petitioners Society and its members, but also by throwing in the winds, the directions of this Court and by disrespecting the order, the respondent had committed contempt. The respondents are bound to pay the interest for the delayed payments. Unless the interest is paid, the respondents should not be left unpunished. 7. Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that though the Transport Corporation has not complied with the conditions within the time limit, they have taken all the care to comply it and subsequently they have complied it, in spite of the financial crisis which the Transport Corporation is facing due to several factors. 7. Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that though the Transport Corporation has not complied with the conditions within the time limit, they have taken all the care to comply it and subsequently they have complied it, in spite of the financial crisis which the Transport Corporation is facing due to several factors. The Corporation is struggling hard, discharging its different commitments and in the interest of the general public, the Corporation is functioning with its day to day operations and as such, the delayed compliance is neither willful nor wanton. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the petitioners cannot demand interest for the delayed payment through this Contempt Application. Non payment of interest amount cannot be the subject matter of this Application. No direction was passed in the Writ petition to give interest for the delayed payments. Further even in the Contempt Application filed in Cont.P. No.110 of 2006, a demand was made for the interest, but this Court; has not given any direction for the payment of interest and as such the petitioner cannot re-agitate the same matter in this Contempt Petition. .9. This Court considered the submission made by both parties and perused the records. It is now admitted by both parties that the deducted amount form the salaries of the employees of the Transport Corporation has been paid to the petitioner society, but admittedly there had been delay in making the payments. Though the payments should have been made within 14 days from the date of its deduction, invariably after several months, the payments have been made. May be true that the Transport Corporation is under the financial crisis due to various factors and it takes care of the interest of the General Public. But at the same time, the society cannot be made to suffer, in spite of getting an order of this Honourable High Court with direction to the corporation to make payments within 14 days from the date of deduction which is also statutory requirements. Admittedly the money deducted by the respondent from the employees towards the loan dues to the petitioners society belongs to the petitioners Society. The respondent has no authority to retain the amount with him without paying the same promptly from the date as directed earlier. Admittedly the money deducted by the respondent from the employees towards the loan dues to the petitioners society belongs to the petitioners Society. The respondent has no authority to retain the amount with him without paying the same promptly from the date as directed earlier. Thus the act of the respondent in retaining the amount thereby forcing the petitioner to approach every time when such delay is caused cannot be appreciated. Of course the earlier Contempt Petitions have been closed by this Court taking into consideration the financial position of the Transport Corporation. 10. The non-payment of interest as claimed by the respondent cannot be subject matter for contempt, since there is no direction by this Court in the order passed in this Writ Petition to pay the interest for the delayed payment. Whether the petitioner is entitled for interest for the delayed payment is an issue to be decided not in this Contempt Petition, but elsewhere. Considering the facts and circumstances and also as the respondent already tendered his apology and an affidavit of undertaking now-filed, this Contempt Petition is closed. 11. This Court insists that the respondent should comply with the order passed in the Writ Petition at least in future without any default. This being the third Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner, while closing it, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to impose cost on the respondent. The respondent-Corporation is directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the petitioner herein within a period of four weeks from today.