***

S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J. –

1. The matter has been taken up through video conferencing in the light of COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as contesting respondent-Bank would submit that pursuant to order dated 14.12.2020, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with the respondent-Bank. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that the balance amount also would be paid by him, on or before 31.03.2021. In this proceeding, what is required to be considered is with reference to interest. However, at this juncture, the judgment rendered in the matter of “Anu Bhalla and another Vs. District Magistrate Pathankot and another” in CWP-5518-2020, disposed of on 22.09.2020 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15836, is brought to the notice of this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. On going through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clearly seen that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding similar issue has felt that the interest should be charged as 9% for the extended period of one time settlement. The fact situation in this matter being similar, we find no reason, as to why the judgment should not be applied to this petition. We feel that it is appropriate to extend the said benefit to the instant writ petitioner. With such observation, we dispose of this writ petition with permission to the petitioner to pay the balance amount with interest at the rate of 9%, as observed by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Anu Bhalla and another, as stated supra.

Petition allowed.

********