JUDGMENT : Vineet Saran, J. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner is a small scale industry of the State of Odisha and is a manufacturer of Auto Tubes and Flaps for all types of vehicles. It is also admitted case of the parties that the petitioner had supplied Heavy Duty Flaps to opposite party no.2-Executive Engineer, Stores & Mechanical Division, Khatiguda, Nabarangpur on 15.10.1986 and raised invoice on the same day for an amount of Rs.13,476.05/- paisa. There is no dispute with regard to the quantity and quality of the supplies made by the petitioner, yet the payment was not made to the petitioner for two decades. 2. Admittedly, the payment for the said supply was made by opposite party no.2 after twenty years on 08.12.2006. The petitioner raised a claim for payment of interest for delayed payment and filed a MSEFC Case No.25/2010 before opposite party no.1-Director of Industries, Odisha. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected only on technical ground of approaching the authority after twenty-four years as, according to opposite party no.1, the supply was made in the year 1986 and the claim was filed in 2010. 3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was required to submit the Sales Tax Clearance Certificate (STCC) and Income Tax Clearance Certificate (ITCC), which were not enclosed along with the bills, and it was only in the year 1993 that such certificates were furnished by the petitioner and because of non-furnishing of such documents, the payment to the petitioner was delayed. It was also stated that there was bifurcation of the Irrigation and Power Department because of which the bills submitted by the petitioner could not be traced out for a long period and, hence, the delay in payment. 4. It is noteworthy that in the counter affidavit, it is not stated as to when the bifurcation of the department had taken place because of which there was delay from 1993 till 2006. No document has also been filed asking for the STCC and ITCC from the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the amount involved is merely Rs.13,000/-and odd, but the matter is of principle, and the question may be settled as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to any interest for delayed payment in the aforesaid admitted facts of the case. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the amount involved is merely Rs.13,000/-and odd, but the matter is of principle, and the question may be settled as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to any interest for delayed payment in the aforesaid admitted facts of the case. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the opinion that the delay in payment to the petitioner is clearly attributable to opposite party no.2. No explanation whatsoever has been given for not making such payment even in the year 1993 i.e. immediately after the STCC and ITCC were provided by the petitioner. In the absence of the opposite party having not been able to show that the said papers were ever demanded from the petitioner prior to 1993, and the delay in payment from 1986 to 1993 has also not been well-explained, though may be accepted to some extent, there is no valid explanation for not making the payment immediately in the year 1993 and having kept the matter pending for the next thirteen years, as admittedly the payment was made only on 22.12.2006. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and keeping in view that the petitioner is contesting this petition only on principle so that the issue may be settled that in such circumstances, whether a party would be entitled to payment of interest for delayed payment or not, and also keeping in view that the amount involved is not very huge, we hold that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of interest and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/-(rupees twenty-five thousand) to the petitioner towards interest for delayed payment for the supply made by the petitioner in the year 1986. Such amount be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before opposite party no.2, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to 12% interest per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/-from 08.12.2006 till the payment is made. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.