IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34777 of 2005(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MANAGER, ST. BERCHMAN'S COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY-686 101. BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, LONG WITH WPC. NOS. 31715 OF 2005 AND 31725 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.34777/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PRO FORM OF THE DIRECT PAYMENT AGREEMENT. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 27.10.04 IN OP. NO.13296/03. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.34777, 31715 & 31725 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are aggrieved since they are not being given the maintenance and contingency grant. The main contention of the petitioners is that as per the agreement executed by the Government with the petitioners they are entitled to periodic disbursement of the maintenance and contingency grant. The same issue was subject matter of consideration by a Division Bench of this court leading to the judgment dated 11-8-2008 in W.P(C)No.8298/2004. Paragraph 10 of the judgment reads as follows:- “10. We have carefully perused the various clauses in the agreement. In our view, the Government could not have unilaterally issued a direction to the managements to transfer the unclaimed caution deposit to the treasury account. It is trite that the parties to a contract shall be bound by the terms of the contract. One of the parties to the contract cannot unilaterally try to enforce its own decision on the other party, especially, when none of the clauses in the agreement gives such an authority to either of them. In our view, the petitioners are amply justified in contending that the impugned order issued by the Government and the two consequential circulars issued by the Director and Deputy Director of Collegiate Education are arbitrary, illegal and unenforceable. Therefore, the above W.P(C) Nos.34777, 31715 & 31725 of 2005 -:2:- order issued by the Government in G.O(MS) No.150/200/H.Edn. dated 9-11-2001 and the two circulars issued by the Directorate (Ext.P2 and P3 in O.P.No.1774/2003) are quashed.” In view of the above judgment these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to disburse the eligible maintenance and contingency grant to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.34777, 31715 & 31725 of 2005 ----------------------------------- JUDGMENT 29th October, 2008