IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3470 of 2007(K)
1. K.REGHUNATHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :27/05/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 3470 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 27th May, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a contractor who executed certain work on
behalf of the Government. Since the amount due to the petitioner has
not been paid, the petitioner filed O.P.No. 26920/1999 in which, this
Court passed the following judgment:
“This original petition is filed alleging that the bills of the
petitioner were not disbursed. On instructions, the learned
Government Pleader submitted that it is true that bills are payable
to the petitioner and it was delayed due to paucity of funds and
delay in sanction. Petitioner submitted the bills after executing
the work. The Government is also expected to make budgetary
provisions before awarding contracts. In this connection, I also
refer to the Division Bench judgment reported in Anirudhan and
others v. State of Kerala and others, [1999 (2) KLJ 252] and
Article 150 of the Kerala Financial Code and Section 15 of the
Kerala P.W.D. Manual. Since the contract work was completed
and there was no dispute regarding admissibility, the admitted
bills should be paid within three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest
from the date of submission of the bills.”
Since the amounts due as per Ext. P2 have not been paid, the
petitioner filed C.C.C.No. 1150/2000, which was considered by a Full
Bench of this Court, which held thus:
“7. We find merit in the contention raised by the learned
Addl. Advocate General. In the nature of the directions given in the
judgment in the original petitions, by non-payment of the bill
amount within the period allowed in each judgment, what the
petitioner can claim is only interest at the rate granted in each
judgment. The judgment is in the nature of a decree which the
petitioner can get executed against the respondents for the
principal amount and interest thereon. If the principal amount is
not paid within the time granted, the liability on the respondent is
to pay interest. We are therefore of the view that by mere non-
payment of the principal amount within the time granted, the
respondents cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of
the Contempt of Courts Act. Apart from the above, we take notice
of the fact that writ appeals have been filed, though with petition to
condone the delay.
W.P.C. No. 3470/07 -: 2 :-
We therefore dismiss all the Contempt of Court Cases as not
maintainable.”
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or
order directing respondents 2 & 3 to pay a sum of Rs.
13,09,253.17/- towards interest for the delayed payment of the bills
due to the petitioner in accordance with Ext. P2 judgment.”
2. I am of opinion that the writ petition itself is not maintainable
in view of Ext. P4 Full Bench decision in the contempt case filed by
the petitioner himself, in so far as the Full Bench has held that since
the judgment is in the nature of a decree, the petitioner has to get it
executed against the respondent for principal amount and the
interest thereof. Subsequently, the petitioner was paid the principal
amount. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of
the petitioner to seek execution of Ext. P2 judgment appropriately,
this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.