JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed with regard to issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent- Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ("GSRTC/ Corporation" for short) to make payment of Rs.36,82,301/- with 12% interest from the date of invoice till the amount is actually paid to the petitioner. 2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Jeet Bhatt, appearing for the petitioner has been submitted that pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2019 passed in the present writ petition, the petitioner has already paid 60% amount from the outstanding amount in 05.09.2019, however 40% of the remaining amount and interest is still not paid. 3. The petitioner was given a Purchase Order dated 25.07.2017 by the respondent-Corporation in view of the tender issued on 09.03.2017 for the purpose of outsourcing of Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) based examination process for recruitment in the respondent-Corporation. Accordingly, the petitioner undertook the recruitment process of rechecking the bench-wise status of each test centre and finalized the seating plan (room-wise) of around 22,613 candidates, which was conducted on 5th and 6th August, 2017. The online answer keys were published on 07.08.2017. However, it appears that thereafter some dispute arose with regard to 23 candidates, which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court and ultimately, the result was corrected. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-Corporation was required to pay the amount as per the terms of the payment of the Purchase Order by 60% of payment, after conducting the examination and the remaining outstanding 40% of the amount, after successful completion of the examination and relevant data submitted to the respondent-GSRTC. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatt appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that 60% of the amount was required to be paid on 07.08.2017 or soon thereafter and 40% outstanding amount was required to be paid on 18.08.2017, however, since the same was not paid, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition, after making representation and issuance of a legal notice on 16.04.2018. It is submitted that pursuant to the interim order, 60% of the amount was paid on 05.09.2019. It is submitted that pursuant to the interim order, 60% of the amount was paid on 05.09.2019. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatt has submitted that the aforesaid interim order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.939 of 2019, wherein the Division Bench, after hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, rejected the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation vide order dated 22.04.2019. The Division Bench of this Court has observed thus :- "While admitting the petition, learned single Judge has granted limited relief and has fixed the matter on 25th April, 2019 for hearing. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by learned single. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. Consequently, connected civil application is disposed of. It will be open for the parties to raise all contentions that may be available to them before the learned single Judge." 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the respondent-Corporation approached the Apex Court challenging the order dated 22.04.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.939 of 2019. It is submitted that the Apex Court vide order dated 03.07.2019 passed in SLP (C) No.13248 of 2019, has expressed that this Court will endeavor to dispose of this writ petition as expeditiously as possible on the same day i.e. 25.07.2019 and with this direction, the Apex Court has disposed of the said SLP. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatt has further submitted that, for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply filed before this Court, it is contended by the respondent- Corporation that due to irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioner in the recruitment process, the image and reputation of the respondent-GSRTC was tarnished. Hence, such amount was not paid. 7. At this stage, Mr.Bhatt, has invited the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 13.10.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1748 of 2017 and allied matters and has submitted that the Division Bench has specifically held that there were no irregularities or illegalities, as alleged by the candidates, committed during the course of the examination or during the selection process and hence, the respondent-GSRTC cannot deny the payment to the petitioner along with the interest. 8. 8. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, appearing for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and confirmed upto the Supreme Court, the petitioner have been paid only 60% of the payment. However, he has submitted that since the image / reputation of the respondent-GSRTC was tarnished due to the news published in the newspaper reports, the petitioner had committed irregularities and illegalities, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any amount. No further submissions are advanced. 9. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties to the lis. I have also perused the relevant documents. 10. It is not in dispute that by the interim order dated 15.02.2019, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing the respective parties, has directed the respondent- Corporation to make 60% payment of the invoices raised by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. The aforesaid order was the subject matter before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.939 of 2019. The Division Bench, vide order dated 22.04.2019, rejected the appeal filed by the respondent- Corporation. The said order was under challenged before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No.13248 of 2018. Ultimately, the SLP was dismissed on 03.07.2019 and thereafter, 60% amount has been paid to the petitioner on 05.09.2019. The Coordinate Bench has also considered the aspect with regard to the maintainability of the petition and after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidhyarthi Vs. State of UP, [(1991) 1 SCC 2012], it was held that the writ petition is maintainable. The Coordinate Bench has also recorded the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 13.10.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1748 of 2017 and allied matters. The observations made by the Division Bench referred in paragraph No.30 are considered by this Court, while passing the interim order dated 15.02.2019. The Division Bench in paragraph No.30 has observed thus :- "30. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that GSRTC has not committed any illegality / irregularity, as alleged by the petitioners. The Division Bench in paragraph No.30 has observed thus :- "30. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that GSRTC has not committed any illegality / irregularity, as alleged by the petitioners. Some of the bona fide mistakes which were committed during the course of examination or during the selection process have been rectified which cannot be termed as illegality/irregularity, as alleged by the petitioners. Thus, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be interfered with. Accordingly, the same is set aside." Finally, the Coordinate Bench in the order dated 15.02.2019, more particularly in paragraph No.7, has observed thus :- "7. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidhyarthi (supra), if the facts of the present case are examined, it is revealed that though the petitioner has raised invoices in the year 2017, copies of which are produced from Page Nos.94 to 96 of the compilation, even the respondent - Corporation has not cared to give any reply and for the first time, in the affidavit in reply filed in the present proceeding, stand is taken that because of the mistake committed by the present petitioner, reputation of the respondent - Corporation was at stake and there was delay in recruitment process, hence, payment is not made. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Division Bench has specifically observed in the order dated 13.10.2017 that there was a bonafide mistake, which was immediately rectified and the same cannot be termed as illegality or irregularity and inspite of such findings recorded by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent - Corporation, till date no reply was given to the petitioner nor any payment was made to the petitioner by the respondent-Corporation, which shows arbitrariness on the part of the respondent-Corporation and, therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court is prima facie of the view that the present petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 11. Thus, this Court is prima facie of the view that the present petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 11. Thus, the Division Bench, while recording in the aforesaid paragraph No.30 has specifically noted that there were no irregularities or illegalities committed in conducting the examination as alleged by some of the candidates in such proceedings and hence, the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, with regard to the illegality or irregularity committed by the petitioner does not merits acceptance. The aforesaid interim order has become final and hence, the respondent-GSRTC cannot shrug away from the responsibilities of paying 40% of the amount to the petitioner as per the terms of payment. 12. So far as the claim with regard to the interest on the payment is concerned, it would be apposite to note some relevant dates, which are as under. "B. Terms of the payment : 60% payment of total value after conduction of examination i.e. on 07.08.2017. 40% outstanding payment of total value after successful completion of examination and relevant data submitted to GSRTC i.e. on 18.08.2017." 13. As per the aforenoted terms of payment, 60% of the amount was required to be paid to the petitioner on 07.08.2017 and 40% of the amount is required to be paid on 18.08.2017. 60% of the amount has been paid to the petitioner on 05.09.2019 and remaining 40% of the amount is still not paid. Thus, delay in making the payment of 60% amount is almost two years. The said amount is only paid after the petitioner approached this Court in view of the interim order dated 15.02.2019. 14. The issue whether the examination was conducted in fair and proper manner, in this regard the Division Bench of this Court has specifically held in the judgment dated 13.10.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1748 of 2017 and allied matters that no irregularities or illegalities were committed in holding the examination. After such observations were made, the respondent-Corporation was required to pay the dues of the petitioner immediately, however the same has not been paid and this Court was constrained to pass an interim order dated 15.02.2019 directing the respondent- Corporation to pay 60% payment of the invoices raised by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. After such observations were made, the respondent-Corporation was required to pay the dues of the petitioner immediately, however the same has not been paid and this Court was constrained to pass an interim order dated 15.02.2019 directing the respondent- Corporation to pay 60% payment of the invoices raised by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. Thus, it would be appropriate that the respondent-GSRTC is directed to pay an interest on 60% amount from 01.11.2017 (i.e. after the decision of the Division Bench i.e. dated 13.10.2017) till 05.09.2019 (i.e. the date of payment of amount of 60%) at the rate of 6% and for the remaining 40% payment, the respondent-Corporation is directed to pay 6% of the interest from 01.11.2017 till it is actually paid. It is clarified that 40% of the remaining amount and interest shall be paid within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of writ of order of this Court and if, there is any delay in making the payment after the time specified by this Court, the same shall carry further interest of 12% per annum. 15. In view of the foregoing reasons and observations, this writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.