As per the case facts, educational societies deposited amounts with the Delhi Development Authority for additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) benefits, challenging the charges in writ petitions. They offered to ... deposit the disputed amount to get revised construction plans sanctioned, which the High Court allowed, stating that the question of interest on refund would be examined if the petitioners succeeded. Subsequently, a notification exempted educational societies with income tax exemption from these charges, making the original writ petitions unnecessary. The High Court disposed of the petitions, directing refunds but denying interest. One appellant's attempt to obtain interest was dismissed by the Supreme Court previously. The current appeal to the Supreme Court concerns the claim for interest on the refunded amount. The question arose as to whether the appellants were entitled to interest on the refunded amount, especially given that the amount was deposited voluntarily and the writ petitions were not fully adjudicated due to a subsequent beneficial notification. Finally, the Supreme Court noted that the initial deposit was a voluntary offer by the appellant, not insisted upon by the court. While the High Court had stated that the issue of interest would be examined if the petitioners succeeded, the writ petitions were not adjudicated on their merits because a new notification provided the benefit, rendering the original challenge moot. The Court considered precedents on compensation for retained money and the principle of restitution but ultimately concluded that since the challenge to the original demand was not adjudicated and the benefit was granted through a subsequent policy change, denying pendente lite interest was justified. The Court emphasized that the issue of interest had already attained finality for one of the appellants.