IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22958 of 2007(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.M. CHACKO, MANATHARA HOUSE, VALANJAVATTOM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR.P.HARIDAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SUB DIVISION, CHENGANNUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22958/2007-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28/10/1999 IN O.P. NO. 23972/1999 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. NIL. 07/04/2000 IN O.P. NO. 7100/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. NIL. SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. NIL. SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN S.L.P. NO. 694/2001 DTD. 01/08/2003. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER SLP (C). NOS. 4333 -4342/2001 DTD. 22/11/2003. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT ON SLP (C). NOS. 9780, 10087, 10096, 10485/2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 22958 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a Government contractor who executed various contract works on behalf of the Government. When payments were not made as per the bills presented, the petitioner filed O.P.Nos. 23972 of 1999 and O.P.No. 7100 of 2000 before this Court. The original petitions were allowed and the Government was directed to disburse the amount within a particular date, failing which the Government was directed to pay 12% interest. The respondents challenged the same before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 7%. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the respondents did not pay the amounts within the time stipulated and therefore they are liable to pay interest at 7%. Now, the petitioner submits that it was a mistaken statement that the Supreme Court had reduced the rate of interest at 7% and actually the Supreme Court upheld the 12% interest. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay the interest @ 12% on the amounts for the works done as mentioned in Exts. P3 and P4 to the petitioner for the period from the date of submission of bill to the date of payment along with further interest at the rate of 12% till the date of effecting payment of interest.” 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that interest was payable only if the amount was not paid within the stipulated date. But, she submits that although the amount was not paid within the date stipulated by the learned Single Judge, the matter was taken in appeal before the Division Bench in W.A.No. 2445/2001, in which the Division Bench directed that if the undisputed amount payable to the petitioner herein is not paid on or before 31st December, 2002, the W.P.C. No. 22958/2007 -: 2 :- appellants shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the original petition. The learned Government Pleader points out that as is clear from the averments in the writ petition itself, the amounts were paid long before 31-12-2002 fixed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the interest is not payable at all is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. A copy of the judgment in the writ appeal has been made available to me by the learned Government Pleader, the operative portion of which reads thus: “3. The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the following order: (i) If the undisputed amount payable to the respondent is not paid on or before 31st December, 2002, the appellants shall be liable and bound to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on such amount from the date of filing of the Original Petition. (ii) The respondent shall be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings before the civil court for recovery of interest for an earlier period or at a rate higher than what we have directed.” In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is stated thus: “7. Finally, the amounts, which were the subject matter of O.P.No. 7100 of 2000 were paid with much delay. The bill 17AEE though presented on 24-11-99 was paid on 30-3-2002. The bill 15AEE though presented on 25-11-1999, paid with a delay of 28 months 3 days on 30-3-2002. The bills 16AEE 99 24AEE were presented on 25-11-1999 were paid of after 28 months and 3 days. All the amounts will carry interest at the rate of 7%.” Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the respondents have paid the amounts within the date stipulated by the Division Bench. Only if the principal amount was not paid within that date, interest was payable. Therefore, clearly the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed W.P.C. No. 22958/2007 -: 3 :- for in this writ petition. Even otherwise, the writ petition is not maintainable since the remedy of the petitioner is not to file another writ petition for enforcing the earlier judgment. The petitioner has to either seek execution of the decree drawn up in accordance with the judgment or file contempt case. For all the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/