IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1198 of 2009 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTR IN WPC.23193/2008 Dated 14/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)// PETITIONER:: -------------------- K.KAMMARAN, RETD. SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER, THEKKE VEEDU, M.T.ROAD, PAYYANNUR.P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KEALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, (SOIL CONSERVATION UNIT),CHALA.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A & E), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, M.G.ROAD,P.B.NO.5667, TRIVANDRUM. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.A. No. 1198 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The appellant retired from the Agriculture Department on 31.01.2001. At the relevant time, he was facing charges in a corruption case, registered as VCB No.3 of 1999 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kannur. So, the D.C.R.G. due to him was not released. So he approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.24135/01. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows: "Considering the submissions on both sides, I am of the opinion that it would not be just to direct the petitioner to wait indefinitely to receive his DCRG till the vigilance case is concluded. At the same time, the interest of the State has also to be protected. In the WA No.1198 of 2009 - 2 - above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on the petitioner furnishing security by way of mortgage by deposit of title deeds of properties belonging to either the petitioner or his spouse." The claim of the appellant for unconditional release of the DCRG was rejected and he was allowed to collect the DCRG on furnishing security for the amount by creating equitable mortgage of landed property in favour of the State. But, the appellant did not move for collecting the DCRG by executing equitable mortgage as suggested by this court. Later, by Ext.P2 judgment dated 22.8.2007, the appellant was acquitted in the vigilance case charge-sheeted against him and thereafter he moved for the release of the amount due to him. Since there was delay, he approached this court by filing the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant submits the amount due to him was released on 6.10.2008. So, what remained in the writ petition was the claim of the appellant WA No.1198 of 2009 - 3 - for interest. The learned Single Judge noticed that in view of Ext.P1 judgment, the appellant cannot claim interest for the period the vigilance case was pending against him. After the disposal of the vigilance case, learned Single Judge found that there was only reasonable delay, having regard to the facts of the case. So, the claim of the appellant for interest was declined by the judgment under appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge refusing to order payment of interest. 3. We heard learned counsel, Sri.V. Premchand, for the appellant and also the Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Benny Gervasis, who appeared for the respondents. We agree with the learned Single Judge that, in view of Ext.P1 judgment, the appellant could not have claimed release of the amount unconditionally till the disposal of the vigilance case. By Ext.P1 judgment, this court ordered release of the amount (without interest) on his execution of sufficient security. After Ext.P2, there was some delay, but we agree with the learned Single WA No.1198 of 2009 - 4 - Judge that the said delay cannot be described as inordinate. It was only a normal delay. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, it is not just or equitable to order payment of public money to the appellant towards interest. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. DK. (True copy)