JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/rule/direction in the mandamus nature of commanding upon the respondents to pay Rs.8,10,000/- to the petitioner for the work done by the petitioner for conducting the videography in General Election, 2014 along with interest @ 18% per annum without any further delay. 3. The brief fact of the case is that during the 2014 General Election for the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election officer, Ramgarh invited quotation from the videographers for recording of the election process and other work related to the election. The petitioner applied for the work and quoted the lowest price of Rs.1,700/- per cameraman with camera per day. After negotiation, the work was allotted to the petitioner, at the negotiated price of Rs.1,500/- per day per cameraman and in this respect, a document was prepared which also bears the signature of the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. After the work being thus allotted to the petitioner, it was directed by the respondents that an extra 132 cameramen over and above the required number, need to be recruited by the petitioner, for the work on 17.04.2014. The petitioner duly complied with and performed the duties. The petitioner raised the bill for Rs.20,62,800/-. The petitioner received an advance payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of a demand draft and further received Rs.7,52,800/- i.e. in total Rs.12,52,800/- against the bill of Rs.20,62,800/- but the petitioner is not being paid the remaining amount of Rs.8,10,000/- by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the Letter No.3 dated 22.05.2014, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to this Writ Petition, addressed by the District Planning Officer-cum-Senior Officer Material Cell, Ramgarh to the Deputy Election Officer, Dhanbad, it has been admitted by the respondents that the work was allotted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per day per cameraman but it was stated therein that the payment has been made as per the minimum rate fixed by the Commissioner of North Chota Nagpur Division. It is next submitted that the respondents, unilaterally, behind the back of the petitioner, cannot change the rate fixed by the joint agreement between the petitioner and the respondents. It is next submitted that the respondents, unilaterally, behind the back of the petitioner, cannot change the rate fixed by the joint agreement between the petitioner and the respondents. It is next submitted that the respondents never intimated the petitioner at the time of allotment of work ,regarding fixing of any minimal rate, rather promised to pay Rs.1,500/- per day per cameraman in terms of the agreement between the parties. Hence, arbitrarily, the respondents cannot reduce the rate of per cameraman from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.900/- for the work done. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition, be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Writ Petition and submits that the State admits that the petitioner quoted the lowest price of Rs.1,700/- per cameraman with camera per day and the price quoted by the petitioner, was the lowest price but after negotiation the price @ Rs.1,500/- per cameraman per day was arrived at between the parties, as has categorically been mentioned in para-10 and 24 of the counter-affidavit. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 admit that the petitioner was directed that extra 132 cameramen other than the required number need to be deployed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities are ready to make payment @ Rs.900/- per cameraman per day. 6. It is next submitted that the Purchase Committee headed by the respondent No.5 on 12.03.2014 decided that the condition that the payment shall be made as per minimum rate fixed by the Commissioner, North Chota Nagpur Division. It is further submitted that the petitioner was himself present before the said purchase Committee in its meeting dated 12.03.2014; which fact of course, is denied by the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent- State fairly submits that the State has no documents to show that the petitioner was present in the meeting of Purchase Committee dated 12.03.2014 and that the petitioner on that day accepted the condition that the payment shall be made as per the minimum rate fixed by the Commissioner of the North Chota Nagpur Division. It is further submitted that after the meeting held on 12.03.2014, page-14 of the counter affidavit, which is the copy of the work order, was issued to the petitioner, in which categorically, it has been mentioned that after negotiation, the rate for each cameraman per day/ per camera, was fixed at Rs.1,500/-. It is next submitted that since the minimum rate of videography was confirmed by the Secretary being the respondent No.3 and was fixed at Rs.900/- in Hazaribagh, therefore, Rs.900/- was to be fixed for the petitioner as well, who provided the cameramen with camera for videography in the district of Ramgarh. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that after the meeting of the Purchase Committee, the petitioner was issued a work order for providing camera @ Rs.1,500/- per cameraman with camera per day. In view of this admitted case of the respondent- State, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the contention of the respondent- State that unilaterally it has the right to reduce the rate per cameraman per day with camera from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.900/- only because in some other district, the minimum wages was Rs.900/-, per day per cameraman; when the undisputed fact remains that basing upon the minutes of the meeting of the Purchase Committee, whereby the rate was fixed after negotiation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per cameraman per day, work order was also issued to the petitioner. Hence, this contention of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 that they are liable to pay only Rs.900/- per day per cameraman with camera to the petitioner being arbitrary not sustainable in law, is rejected. 8. So far as the rate of interest on the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- as claimed by the petitioner at the rate of 18% per month is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant. Considering the prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized Bank, this Court is of the considered view that Simple Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount due and payable to the petitioner, but not paid, will be proper. 9. Considering the prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized Bank, this Court is of the considered view that Simple Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount due and payable to the petitioner, but not paid, will be proper. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the respondent No.4 be directed to pay Rs.8,10,000/- to the petitioner with Simple Interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this Writ Petition i.e., 05.11.2014 to till the date of actual payment within two months from the date of this order. 10. Hence, in view of the discussions made about this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to pay Rs.8,10,000/- to the petitioner with Simple Interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this Writ Petition i.e., 05.11.2014 to till the date of actual payment within two months from the date of this order 11. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.