Judgment MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner is a Trust running Lodging and Boarding "Ashramshala" and Junior College for the poor and needy students from Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and VJNT students. The Trust gets grant from the State/respondent no. 1 every year 60% of the grants are given as advance prior to the commencement of every academic year in the month of May and 40% of the grant is disbursed in the month of December every year. In the Academic years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 the respondent/State disbursed excess amount at the time of giving advance and therefore, the said excess amount was recovered by deducting the amount in installments from the grants of the subsequent years. The particulars in this regard from the secondary Ashramshala and from the Junior college Ashramshala are as follows :- Sr. Year Excess Deducted No amount amount 1 2007-2008 9,04,137 2 2008-2009 11,84,467 3 2009-2010 ---- 17,67,154/- 4 2010-2011 ---- 3,05,564/- 5 2011-2012 2,36,485/- TOTAL 20,88,604 23,09,203 Sr. Year Excess Deducted No. amount amount 1 2008-2009 6,92,900 2 2009-2010 ---- 2,07,900 3 2010-2011 --- 4 2011-2012 5,01,700/- TOTAL 6,92,900 7,09,600/- 3. Thus the entire amount which was paid towards the excess advance was recovered by the State. 4. The respondent no.1 issued the impugned letter dated 6.12.2010 demanding interest at the rate of 18% on the said excess amount which was paid and recovered by the respondents. On the point of payment of excess amount and the recovery of the said amount by way of deduction, the parties are not at issue but the impugned letter demanding interest at the rate of 18% on the said amount is disputed. 5. The amount was paid by mistake by the respondents. If is not the case of the respondents that it was paid by mutual mistake or due to any mala-fide or dishonest stand taken by the petitioner. Despite the knowledge of the payment of the excess amount in the year 2008-2009 respondents did not charge any interest at the time of recovery. The respondents never demanded interest under the Interest Act or otherwise. The present demand for interest is made more than three years after the accrual of the cause of action assuming the respondent has one. 6. Ms. The respondents never demanded interest under the Interest Act or otherwise. The present demand for interest is made more than three years after the accrual of the cause of action assuming the respondent has one. 6. Ms. Bhende was unable to indicate any provision of law or custom entitling the respondent to interest. She merely relied upon Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. The demand of the interest by the respondent at the rate of 18% relying upon section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 is not tenable. Hence, there cannot be any recovery pursuant to the said letter. 8. Hence, the said demand is quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.