on the delayed payment, which does not call for any interference by this court. 14. As a riposte, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decisions relied on the side of the State are not applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein the case was not contested on merits and based on the 12 Union of India and others v. Dr. J K Goel (1995) Supp (3) SCC 161 13Periyar & Pareekannai Rubber Ltd v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 19512 statement made by the State in the writ proceedings, the learned Single Judge passed the orders dated 30.11.2016 relating to grant of interest on the delayed payment. It is also submitted that on behalf of the State, one Assistant by name Preet Singh was present in the Court and after obtaining instructions from him, the State counsel made the statement before the learned Single Judge that the Government shall pay interest on the delayed payment. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to this Court that the State may be directed to grant