IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 246 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16134/2008 Dated 12/12/2008 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- SAMUEL VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR,KADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O., HARIPPAD, ALLEPPEY 690 511. BY ADV. MR. K.BABU THOMAS MS. MARYKUTTY BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (K) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGSTION DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 246 OF 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT J. Chelameswar, C.J. The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16134 of 2008, not satisfied with the judgment dated 12.12.2008 the instant appeal is filed. 2. The Writ Petition itself was filed with the prayers as follows : i) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, or order or direction to the 5th respondent, to forthwith transfer Rs. 205 lakhs alloted in Ext. P1 to the 4th respondent to effect payment of Exts. P4 and P5 bills for value of works carried out by the petitioner. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction to the respondents to effect payment of Exts. P4 and P5 bills from the funds alloted in Ext. P1, without any delay and before effecting payment of any bills submitted later than 25.07.2007, before effecting payment due to the petitioner in the bills submitted. iii) issue a writ of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction, interdicting the respondents from effecting payment of any amount from and out of funds alloted in Ext. W.A. No. 246 of 2009 : 2 : P6 and P7, i.e. Rs. 580 lakhs, for similar works, before effecting payment of Ext. P4 and P5 bills submitted fro the petitioner for value of works carried out. iv) issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, or order, or direction, requiring the respondents to pay interest at 14 % per annum from the respective dates of submission of bills, till date of payment of the amount due to petitioner in Exts. P4 and P5 bills, as is charged by the financier bank, to disgorge unjust enrichment of the respondent and to restore his position ante as is declared in Anirudhan V Kerala (1999) 3 KLT 1 (DB). v. grant such other reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem, proper, just equitable and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case including the costs incurred by the petitioner in these proceedings. 2. It appears from the judgment under appeal that a statement was filed on behalf of the respondent. The relevant portion of the said statement is extracted in the judgment under appeal at paragraph 2, which reads as follows : “2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, in which it is stated thus : “Hence Government could not transfer sufficient funds to District Collector, Kottayam for effecting payment to the petitioner within the stipulated time prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court. But Government is willing/ready to pay the Ext. P4 bill amount of Rs. 1,00,32,432/- W.A. No. 246 of 2009 : 3 : according to the availability of funds as per the aforesaid clause of the agreement and which will be possible during the next financial year by the end of May, 2009.” 3. In view of the said concession made by the State, the learned Judge disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the respondent to make the payment of the admitted amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. 4. The grievance of the appellant in the instant appeal is that the learned Judge ought to have granted interest on the delayed payment. 5. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. It is well settled that money claims will not be adjudicated in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, by the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge only directed the payment of the admitted amount by the State, which the State was willing to pay, within a stipulated period. The learned Judge did not either examine the rights and obligations of the parties nor adjudicate them. In the circumstances, the Writ Appeal is dismissed with an observation that it is open to the appellant to pursue such other W.A. No. 246 of 2009 : 4 : remedies as available under the law to the appellant in the circumstances of the case. Sd/- J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge