JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge instant appeal has been filed. 2. Admittedly position as emerged from the records and from rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties is that writ petitioner had entered into a contract with the Food Corporation of India (appellant herein) for transportation of food grains. The contract work allotted was successfully completed however dispute arose regarding increase and decrease of price in diesel. As a result whereof, four writ petitions WP (C) Nos.341, 342, 343 and 344 of 2016 were filed. In addition to the above issue in WP (C) No.341 of 2016, another issue was also raised regarding delay in release of security money amounting to Rs.79,96,046/- (Rupees seventy nine lakhs ninety six thousand and forty six). 3. The learned Single Judge by the common judgment impugned regarding dispute pertaining increase and decrease of price in diesel referred to para 10 the affidavit-in-opposition wherein, Clause XX was pressed into service providing for referring such matter to the Dispute/Redressal Committee. Clause XX is relevant of the terms and conditions governing the contract reads as under:- “XX. Law Governing the Contract & Dispute resolution (a) The Contract will be governed by the Laws of India for the time being in force. In case of any disputes arising out of and touching upon the contract, the same will be first referred to the Dispute/Grievance Redressal Committee constituted and functioning at the Zonal Office of the Corporation, with a view to settle the disputes. If any disputes remain thereafter, the same will be settled in the Court of Law having competent jurisdiction.” 4. After referring to the same learned Single Judge has opined, “let the matter be settled between the parties by the said Redressal Committee”. Vis-à-vis this opinion, same is not assailed. 5. Instant appeal has been filed by the petitioner of writ petition WP (C) No.341 of 2016 claiming award of interest for non-release of the security money for the period it was withheld without any justification. 6. Vis-à-vis this opinion, same is not assailed. 5. Instant appeal has been filed by the petitioner of writ petition WP (C) No.341 of 2016 claiming award of interest for non-release of the security money for the period it was withheld without any justification. 6. Learned Single Judge dealing with the issue has recorded the findings in favour of the writ petitioner in affirmative observing that in case security money amounting to Rs.79,96,046/- (Rupees seventy nine lakhs ninety six thousand and forty six) would have been paid back to the writ petitioner therein, he would utilize the same or could have kept it in fixed deposit as such would earn interest thereon. Finally, has directed the respondent-Food Corporation of India (appellant herein) to pay 3% interest on the security money from the date it was due to be released. 7. Aggrieved by the said direction instant appeal has been filed by the Food Corporation of India. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly contract was completed and No Demand Certificate (for short NDC) was issued on 11.04.2016 but the security money was released on 17.11.2016 means for a period of seven months, the money remained with the appellant for which they claimed that there were certain inter departmental communications, therefore, appellant is not liable to pay any interest. In addition thereto, he placed reliance on Clause IX (c) of the terms and conditions governing the contract so as to say that Corporation is not liable to pay any interest on the security deposit. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Corporation had no right to retain the security deposit after NDC was issued. 8. While considering the submissions on the issue, at the first instance, it would be apposite to quote Clause IX (c) of the terms and conditions governing the contract:- “IX. Security Deposit (c) The Security Deposit will be refunded to the Contractors on due satisfactory performance of the services, and on completion of all obligations by the Contractor under the terms of the Contract and on submission of a “No Demand certificate”, subject to such deduction from the Security as may be necessary for recovering the Corporation’s claims against the Contractor. The Corporation will not be liable for payment of any interest on the Security Deposit.” 9. The Corporation will not be liable for payment of any interest on the Security Deposit.” 9. Clause IX (c) has to be interpreted in a pragmatic manner so as to advance its object. It does not entitle the appellant to withhold the security deposit after completion of the contract work and issue of “No Demand Certificate”. Beyond that point it would be illogical for the Corporation to say that it is not liable to pay interest. Protection from payment of interest on security deposit is for the contract period and completion work. 10. Plain reading of the said Clause suggests that when security deposit is made that would remain with the appellant-Corporation till contract is completed and NDC is issued. It does not clothe the Corporation with a power to retain the security deposit beyond that point as there can be no justification for withholding the security deposit. Unnecessary withholding of the security deposit is impermissible therefore interest in such eventually has to be paid by the Corporation. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that due to some inter departmental communications security deposit could not be released in time, pales into insignificance in view of the fact that in other three connected matters security deposit has been paid well in time. True it is that there is a delay of only seven months in release of security deposit in favour of the respondent but seven months’ time means a lot for a contractor. 12. Learned Single Judge has taken a lenient view in awarding only 3% of interest. Respondent has not filed any cross appeal so interest at the rate of 3% for a period of seven months only is payable to the respondent. 13. In the upshot, the appeal is found to be without merit as such dismissed.