CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 11 KL CK 0156

Jose P. Issac, Government Contractor vs State of Kerala and Others

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J · P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.A. No. 1865 of 2010
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 348 words

J. Chelameswar, C.J.—Aggrieved by a judgment dated 28th September, 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 29779 of 2010, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred this writ appeal.

2.

The appellant executed certain work pursuant to a contract entered into between the appellant and the third respondent Kerala State Rural Development Board of which the first respondent is the successor in interest. Complaining that though he successfully executed the work which he was obliged under the above mentioned contract and inspite of such completion of the work the respondents were not paying the amounts due under the contract, the appellant made certain representations. As the representations did not achieve the result, the appellant had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 22205 of 2007. By judgment dated 15th November, 2007 which is marked as Ext.P4 in the writ petition, this Court directed the 5th respondent therein to consider the representation made by the appellant and pass appropriate orders regarding the payment of money to the appellant. It appears that pursuant to the said direction an amount of Rs. 2,23,983/- was paid to the appellant on 31.12.2007. The instant writ petition is filed complaining that though the principal amount is paid, interest for the delayed payment is not paid. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows:

i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the originals relating to Ext.P7 and quash the same.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% from 31.3.1991 to 31.12.2007.

3.

By the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the proper remedy for the appellant is to file a civil suit.

4.

We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. It is made clear that we have neither declared the right of the appellant to receive any such amount nor any other question incidental to the determination of such a claim.