IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 3470 of 2007(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.REGHUNATHAN, T.P.14/1502, LAYAM, ARAPPURA LANE, KANNAMMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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.