Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay unto him the interest accrued every five years on security deposit collected by the respondents. The petitioner has obtained a connection for supply of Liquidified Petroleum Gas from the Indian Oil Corporation and for that purpose he has entered into an agreement. The supplier has supplied the requisite equipments to the petitioner who is a consumer viz. the cylinder and the pressure regulators. The consumer is responsible for safe custody of the aforementioned equipment and is prohibited from selling mortgaging and/or otherwise encumbering the said equipments. According to the petitioner, for the purpose of obtaining connection for supply of such L. P. G., he had to deposit a security amount of Rs. 950/- for two cyclinders and regulator. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to interest on the said amount. The petitioner by a letter dated 29.3.94 addressed to the Under Secretary, Government of India, demanded such interest. By reason of a letter dated 7.2.95, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited stated as follows : "We have for reference your letter IESL/002/WEL/361 dated 18.4.94 vide which you have forwarded the application of Ex-Sgt. I. P. Bhattacharya on the above subject. Shri Bhattacharya has suggested that interest on the security deposit charged against LPG equipments should be paid to the consumers after every five years. In this context, we wish to point out that as per the policy, followed by all the oil companies, no interest is payable to the consumers on the security deposits collected from them against LPG equipments. This Security Deposit is collected by the Distributor on behalf of the Corporation and is remitted to the Corporation. This is for your information." The petitioner again wrote a letter on 30th August 1995 to the Under Secretary of the Public Grievance and Pension Department and in reply thereto by a letter dated 17th August, 1995 as contained in annexure 'C' to the writ application, it was stated that payment of interest on security deposit is not feasible. In that letter it was clarified that such security amount is collected by the Distributors for Oil Companies as are remitted to the Oil Companies. It was further stated that the same was collected only once from the customer, whereas the equipments have to be replaced after 12-15 years. Mr. Bhattacharya, the petitioner, who appears in person has submitted that keeping in view the fact that the Indian Oil Corporation has lacs of consumers and thus collected crores of rupees by way of security amount, they should pay interest to the consumers. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 5 and 6, on the other hand, submits that such security deposit are taken as consumers allowed to use the equipments belonging to the Oil Companies as also by way of performance of contract in terms of clause 2 of annexure 'A' to the the affidavit-in-opposition. The interest is payable either under contract or under the law. Admittedly, no interest is payable under the contract. It is now a trite law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. It is a also trited that a writ of mandamus can be issued only in the event the writ petitioner shows existence of legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty on the respondent. The contract is still continuing and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is also not entitled to the refund of security amount. Had the petitioner been entitled to refund of the security amount- and despite demand the respondents had not refunded the said amount, the petitioner could have been entitled to interest in terms of the provisions of Interest Act from the date mentioned in the said demand.
(2.) In view of the fact that neither under the contract nor under any law, the petitioner is entitled to interest on any security amount, no writ can be issued in his favour as has been prayed for.
(3.) For the reasons aforementioned, this application is dismissed ": but as the petitioner has appeared in person, there will be no order as to costs. Writ application dismissed.;