ORDER : I.A. No. 8092 of 2018 This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 113 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-State of Jharkhand. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submission made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 113 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 8092 of 2018 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 482 of 2018 5. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4467 of 2015, whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for by the writ petitioner-respondent, in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents-State of Jharkhand to release the admitted due amount in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the tune of Rs.4,18,958/-, which has been directed to be disbursed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of that order and if payment is not made within the stipulated time, the amount will carry interest @ 12 % per annum from the date it became due till the date of payment. 6. The brief facts of the case, which requires to be enumerated herein reads hereunder as: The writ petitioner-respondent, in pursuance to the notice inviting tender for selection of contractors for construction of 18 K.M Road for the financial year 2004-05, made an application for consideration of his candidature, in which, he has been found to be successful and accordingly, the work in question was allotted to him and other bidders. The appellants-authorities entered into agreement with the writ petitioner-respondent vide Agreement No. 10F2/01.12.2005 for estimated cost of Rs. 16,81,106/-and earnest money to the tune of Rs. 85,000/-was deposited by the writ petitioner-respondent. Thereafter, the writ petitioner-respondent commenced the construction work in order to complete it within a period of 12 months, as per the condition stipulated in the agreement. The appellants-authorities entered into agreement with the writ petitioner-respondent vide Agreement No. 10F2/01.12.2005 for estimated cost of Rs. 16,81,106/-and earnest money to the tune of Rs. 85,000/-was deposited by the writ petitioner-respondent. Thereafter, the writ petitioner-respondent commenced the construction work in order to complete it within a period of 12 months, as per the condition stipulated in the agreement. After the work was completed by the writ petitioner-respondent within the stipulated period of time, he made a representation for payment of admitted dues, out of which, 12,56,875/-was paid but in the garb of pendency of vigilance inquiry, the payment pertaining to seven contractors including the writ petitioner-respondent was withheld, which led the writ petitioner-respondent to file writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 4467 of 2015, for a direction upon the respondents for disbursement of the amount, which was allowed vide order dated 12.04.2018, inter alia on the ground that merely on the ground of pendency of vigilance inquiry the admitted amount cannot be withheld that too when the same has been paid with respect to other contractors, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 7. Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned G.P. I appearing for the appellants-State of Jharkhand has assailed the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that no such payment has been made to any of the contractors, therefore, there is error apparent on the face of record, basing upon which direction has been passed by the learned Single Judge for making payment in favour of writ petitioner-respondent. Further ground has been agitated that in a case where the vigilance inquiry is going on, direction for making payment of the admitted amount cannot be said to be justified. 8. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the appellants-State of Jharkhand and in order to appreciate his argument has gone through the counter affidavits filed before the writ Court, in order to examine as to whether the ground which has been agitated for filing appeal with respect to payment of admitted amount in favour of other contractors, which is now being disputed, has ever been agitated before the writ Court. 9. 9. This Court, on scrutiny of the stand taken in the counter affidavits, has found therefrom that no such plea has been taken with respect to the fact that the admitted amount has not been paid in favour of the other contractors, save and except at paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State there is reference of one contractor, namely, Anil Kumar Singh, in whose case when the order passed by the writ Court was not complied with, a contempt case being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 667 of 2015 was filed, which was dismissed with an observation that the admissible amount would be released on conclusion of vigilance enquiry. Further, the fact about pendency of the vigilance case has also been examined by going through the pleadings made in the counter affidavits filed by the appellants-State of Jharkhand before the writ Court where from it is evident that there is no reference of F.I.R pertaining to any vigilance case rather reference of vigilance inquiry has been made. In the light of aforesaid grounds agitated by the State before the writ Court, this Court has proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order. 10. It is not in dispute that in a case of contractual dues, the writ Court is not required to interfere by passing a direction in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents to disburse the amount, however, if the amount is admitted, the writ Court can pass order in the nature of mandamus for disbursement of amount. 11. This Court has proceeded to examine the factual aspect on the basis of aforesaid position of law and has found from the documents annexed in the writ petition, which is also part of the paper book of this memorandum of appeal that vide letter no. 735 dated 14.03.2008 (Annexure 1 series to the writ petition), the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, (N.R.E.P-1 and P.M.G.S.Y) addressed to Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Division, Daltonganj, has issued a communication, whereby and whereunder he had given permission to make payment of the due amount in lieu of the completion of the work, subject to verification of the quality of work as also by screening the performance of the work on the basis of specification. 12. 12. In response to the said letter dated 14.03.2008, the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Division, Daltonganj, has issued a communication as contained in letter no. 186 dated 22.02.2010, whereby and whereunder it has been stated that the quality of work has been tested and work has been completed physically and further it has been stated that for the said work, partial payment to the tune of Rs. 4,18,958.00 is pending, as such request was made for allotment of the fund so that payment could be made in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent. 13. It is further evident from the letter dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) that total agreement amount was Rs. 16,81,106.00, and value of work as per the measurement-book was assessed to the tune of Rs. 16,75,833.00, out of which Rs. 12,56,875.00 was already disbursed in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent and rest due amount was to the tune of Rs. 4,18,958.00, for which, request was made before the Engineer-in-Chief, for providing allotment of amount, so that payment could be made in favour of writ petitioner-respondent. 14. But after lapse of about two years, one another letter, being letter no. 1318 dated 12.12.2012 was issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Work Division, Daltonganj to the writ petitioner-respondent, wherein it has been stated that as per the measurement-book, amount of Rs. 4,18,958.00 is due, for which, request for allotment was earlier made, but now for the road in question since vigilance inquiry is going on, as such after submission of report of vigilance inquiry and availability of allotment due amount shall be paid, which compelled the writ petitioner-respondent to approach before this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein direction has been sought for to release the admitted due amount in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the tune of Rs. 4,18,948/-and the writ Court has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the fact that vigilance inquiry was conducted in the year 2006, but no irregularity was found and thereafter, money has been disbursed in favour of other contractor without releasing the same in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent. 15. 4,18,948/-and the writ Court has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the fact that vigilance inquiry was conducted in the year 2006, but no irregularity was found and thereafter, money has been disbursed in favour of other contractor without releasing the same in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent. 15. It is evident from the communication dated 14.03.2008 (Annexure 1 series to the writ petition) and letter dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure 2) that the amount which is now being sought to be released in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent has been admitted by the respondents-authorities at the relevant point of time. 16. The question herein is that when the aforesaid amount has already been admitted by the Executive Engineer, who has entered into an agreement with the writ petitioner can it be justified in withholding the amount on the ground of pendency of vigilance inquiry? 17. It is further not in dispute that on conclusion of the vigilance inquiry, an F.I.R would be instituted and it is settled position of law that if a criminal case is instituted the same will have its own consequence. 18. Once the amount has been admitted that too on the basis of screening of quality of work by getting a report to that effect from the competent body, as has been referred in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, vide letter dated 22.02.2010 and appended to the memorandum of appeal, it cannot be said that the writ Court has no power to issue the writ of mandamus in a case of admitted dues as the case in hand is. 19. It is evident from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the disbursement of amount has been made in favour of the other contractor, which also led the learned Single Judge in passing such direction. 20. Further the fact about disbursement of the amount in favour of the other contractors have been disputed by learned counsel for the appellants-State of Jharkhand by taking a ground in the memorandum of appeal but the question is that when such pleading was not before the writ Court can it be allowed to be agitated by taking a ground by the appellants-State of Jharkhand in appeal. 21. 21. In order to verify this aspect of the matter, as has been reflected herein above by making reference of the pleading of the State-authorities as has been made in two counter affidavits filed before the writ Court, it appears that no such pleading has been made about non-disbursement of the amount in favour of the other contractors, save and except, there is mention of name of one contractor, namely, Anil Kumar Singh, who had approached the writ Court and for non-compliance of order passed by writ Court, he filed one Contempt case, which was dropped with an observation that the admissible amount would be released on conclusion of vigilance enquiry, save and except the statement with regard to one contractor, there is no averment with respect to other 35 contractors, since it is admitted case of the parties that there were altogether 36 contractors including the writ petitioner-respondent, save and except said Anil Kumar Singh. There is no statement with respect to other contractors by the appellants-State of Jharkhand in spite of the fact that the writ petitioner-respondent has taken specific plea with respect to disbursement of amount in favour of other contractors and having not disputed the said statement in the counter affidavits, the writ Court has passed the order taking into consideration the pleading made by the writ petitioner-respondent with regard to making payment of the amount in favour of the other contractors. 22. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the grounds, which have been agitated by the appellants, were never before the writ Court. It is settled position of law that in the appeal no new fact can be allowed to be agitated, which is the fact herein, hence the very ground about non-disbursement of the amount in favour of other contractors, since was not raised before the writ Court, therefore, the ground is not fit to be appreciated and considered, accordingly rejected. 23. It is settled position of law that in the appeal no new fact can be allowed to be agitated, which is the fact herein, hence the very ground about non-disbursement of the amount in favour of other contractors, since was not raised before the writ Court, therefore, the ground is not fit to be appreciated and considered, accordingly rejected. 23. Admittedly, it is the case of the appellants-State of Jharkhand that the work in question was of the year 2005, which was completed within the stipulated period of 12 months and after considerable period of three years, communication dated 14.03.2008 was made for making payment of the rest of the amount, but the amount has not been disbursed fairly for a long period even though, as would appear from the specific stand taken by the writ petitioner-respondent at paragraph 6 of the writ petition about conducting the vigilance enquiry with respect to screening the quality of the work in question the amount has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioner. It requires to refer herein that the stand taken by the writ petitioner at paragraph 6 of the writ petition has not been controverted by the appellants-State in the counter affidavit, therefore, the fact about conducting vigilance inquiry about screening of the quality of the work cannot be said to be in dispute. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in a case where work has commenced in the year 2005 and completed within the stipulated period as per the time fixed in the agreement, considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter if the learned Single Judge has issued direction for disbursement of the rest of the amount in favour of the writ petitioner, the same cannot be said to suffer from infirmity. 24. Further, the learned Single Judge has also passed the order for making payment of the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period of two months, failing which the writ petitioner would be entitled to get interest @ 12 % per annum from the due date till the date of payment. It is settled position of law that interest if directed to be paid it puts burden upon the State exchequer but it would not be appropriate to say that Court of law cannot pass order for payment of interest. It is settled position of law that interest if directed to be paid it puts burden upon the State exchequer but it would not be appropriate to say that Court of law cannot pass order for payment of interest. It also requires to refer herein, which has been agitated by the appellants-State about pendency of the vigilance inquiry, the learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter also before coming to the conclusion about disbursement of the amount within the stipulated period of time in favour of the writ petitioner and rightly not taken into consideration the fact about pendency of the vigilance inquiry, as because as would be evident form the statement made at paragraph 6 of the writ petition, as referred herein above, wherein reference of vigilance inquiry has been made and it was stated that no illegality in completion of the work in question has been found. Such aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the appellants-State in the counter affidavit, therefore, pendency of further vigilance inquiry, if any, will not come in the way of the disbursement of the said amount. 25. The fact, which is to be seen while passing such direction is the delay if caused on behalf of authorities. This Court has considered this factual aspect in the light of aforesaid legal position and found therefrom and from the materials available on record that admittedly the work has been completed sometime in the year 2005-06 and thereafter substantial amount to the extent of 75 % has been paid. It further appears that for making payment of rest of the amount to the extent of 25 % to the tune of Rs. 4,18,958.00, the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Daltonganj has made a request for providing allotment after screening the quality of work as also the specification as per the agreement and the Executive Engineer made remark so far as quality of the material used as also the specifications, to be satisfactory. 4,18,958.00, the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Daltonganj has made a request for providing allotment after screening the quality of work as also the specification as per the agreement and the Executive Engineer made remark so far as quality of the material used as also the specifications, to be satisfactory. Such communication has been made in the year 2010 and 2012, as would be evident from Annexure 1/A and Annexure 2 to the writ petition, but even then also allotment has not been made, in the result the said amount has not been disbursed rather in the year 2016 in the garb of initiation of inquiry by the State Cabinet Vigilance Department, Government of Jharkhand, the said amount has been withheld. 26. This Court has found that when the authorities has found the work done by the writ petitioner-respondent to be satisfactory so far its quality and specifications are concerned and having found no infirmity therein, it was incumbent upon the authority to make payment of the rest of the amount when the amount is admitted by the appellants-authorities within the stipulated time, as directed by this Court, but not paid. Therefore, if the interest @ 12 % per annum has been directed to be paid on the basis of facts reflected herein above, this part of the impugned order is also not to be interfered with, accordingly not interfered. 27. This court, in the entirety of the discussions, made herein above and after going through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has committed no illegality in passing such direction for making payment within two months failing which the writ petitioner would be entitled to get interest @ 12 % per annum from the date it became due till the date of payment, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 28. In view thereof, we do not impress upon the grounds agitated by the appellants-State of Jharkhand, showing any interference in the impugned order. 29. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 30. So far as pendency of the vigilance inquiry is concerned, it goes without saying that the appellants-authorities will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law depending upon the outcome of the vigilance inquiry. 31. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No. 8093 of 2018 stands dismissed.