High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-24Writ petition dismissed

M Basheer v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.24186/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2021-11-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The court held that, in contractual matters, a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be used to compel payment of interest, though it does not preclude pursuing further remedies or documents before appropriate authorities.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M Basheer

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Superintending Engineer (R&B), PWD South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram
Executive Engineer, PWD Road Division, Alappuzha
SMT. Princy Xavier, Sr. Government Pleader

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. M. Abdul Latheef

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. Princy Xavier, Sr. Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner M Basheer, a registered PWD contractor, challenges non-payment of interest and retention on delayed payments for four budgetary works undertaken for the Kerala State Public Works Department (PWD). Certificates had allegedly confirmed completion, but payments were delayed, prompting him to seek interest at 18% and 10% retention with interest for the delay. He previously approached this Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 2187 of 2007 and 19739 of 2017; Ext. P10 Commented Judgment noted government communications, and Ext. P11 shows an order declining interest, with Ext. P13 representing follow-up attempts to secure relief. The petitioner relies on Thawardas Pherumal and others v. Union of India (AIR 1955 SC 468), Ravindran v. Public Works Department (2017 (4) KLT 759), and Punjab National Bank and others v. Atmanand Singh and Others (2020 (6) SCC 256) to argue maintainability of a writ petition for payment of interest, and to claim the court should intervene in the contractual dispute under Article 226. The respondents argue that a writ petition for payment of interest is unsustainable where the matter is essentially contractual and where relief requires evidence of delay attribution. The Kerala High Court ultimately held that a writ petition cannot decide payment of interest in a contractual matter and dismissed the petition, while leaving room to pursue Exts. P12 and P13 before appropriate authorities or submit further documents. The decision emphasizes limits of writ jurisdiction in purely contractual claims and maintains the possibility of pursuing other remedies.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaThe Interest Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Writ petitions for payment of interest alone are generally not maintainable.
Alternate remedy doctrine / principle that writs are not a substitute for contractual disputes.
Contractual matters fall outside writ jurisdiction under Article 226 unless there is a factual record showing delay attributable to the government and the court can adjudicate merits.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that he is entitled to interest at 18% and retention at 10% on delayed payments for four budgetary works carried out for the PWD. He relies on Thawardas Pherumal (AIR 1955 SC 468), Ravindran v. PWD (2017 (4) KLT 759) and Punjab National Bank v. Atmanand Singh (2020 (6) SCC 256) to contend that a writ petition is a proper vehicle for securing payment of interest under the Interest Act, and that Exts. P1–P4 document the claims. Ext. P11 (2007) is an order declining interest; Ext. P13 is a representation to the Government seeking relief. He contends that the Court should adjudicate the merits and grant relief, given the repeated delays in payment; the matter is a contractual claim and thus requires examination of evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the writ petition is not maintainable for payment of interest alone since the dispute is essentially contractual. Interest, if any, under the Interest Act depends on whether delay is attributable to the respondents, a determination that requires evaluation of factual circumstances and evidence. The writ Court cannot decide such questions under Article 226 without a proper factual record. Reliance on Thawardas Pherumal, Ravindran, and Punjab National Bank is limited as those decisions do not establish writ petition maintainability for such claims; the court should dismiss the petition and allow Exts. P12 and P13 to be pursued before the appropriate authorities.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Thawardas Pherumal and another v. Union of India	AIR 1955 SC 468	Mentioned Only	Cited to note that the Supreme Court discussed the Interest Act but did not consider maintainability of writ petitions for payment of interest.
Ravindran v. Public Works Department	2017 (4) KLT 759	Mentioned Only	Cited to show that maintainability of writ petitions for interest was not considered in that judgment.
Punjab National Bank and others v. Atmanand Singh and Others	2020 (6) SCC 256	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss alternate remedy but not to support maintainability of writ petitions for interest.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M Basheer v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 24186 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **M BASHEER, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED KUNJU, KALATHIL HOUSE, KAKKAZHAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN:688 005.** **BY ADV T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 001.**| |**2**|**SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (R&B),**| ||**PWD SOUTH CIRCLE,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 001.**| |**3**|**THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,**| ||**PWD ROAD DIVISION,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA, PIN:688 001.**| ||**SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.24186/2021** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 24[th] day of November, 2021** The petitioner, who is a registered PWD Contractor having undertaken contract work of Kerala State Public Work Department, has filed this writ petition seeking to command the 1[st] respondent to pay interest at the rate of 18% in the minimum which was paid by the petitioner to various banks and financial institutions for carrying out the work covered by Exts.P1 to P4 and also the retention amount payable to him at the rate of 10% of the total value of the work done by him, which was retained from him for the above works with interest for the delayed payment of the said amount forthwith. 2. The petitioner undertook four budgetary works of the Kerala State Public Works Department. According to the **WP(C).No.24186/2021** **3** petitioner, there was huge delay in effecting payment. Certificates were issued by the concerned Department officials confirming the completion of the work. The petitioner thereupon made claims for payment of interest for the delayed payment of contractual amount. No action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner approached this Court filing W.P. (C) No.2187 of 2007. This Court directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for interest. The petitioner states that the respondents still refused payment of interest. 3. The petitioner again approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.19739 of 2017. By Ext.P10 judgment, this Court noted that an order has been passed by the respondents in this regard and accordingly the writ petition was closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Government as communicated through his counsel, if so advised. **WP(C).No.24186/2021** **4** 4. The petitioner would submit that by Ext.P11 order dated 15.05.2007, the 1[st] respondent had declined payment of interest to the petitioner. Ext.P11 is unsustainable. The petitioner thereafter approached the Principal Secretary of Government, Public Works Department filing Ext.P13. However, no action has been taken. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the maintainability of the writ petition for payment of interest, relied on the judgment in _**Thawardas Pherumal and another v. Union of India** [AIR 1955 SC 468]_ , _**Ravindran v. Public Works Department** [2017 (4) KLT 759] and_ _**Punjab National Bank and others v. Atmanand Singh and Others** [2020 (6) SCC 256]._ Based on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the petitioner insisted that he is entitled to claim payment of interest in this writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. **WP(C).No.24186/2021** **5** 7. It is trite law that a writ petition cannot be normally entertained for the purpose of payment of interest alone. Courts have been granting interest in respect of pensionery and other statutory claims of Government servants etc. However, this writ petition falls purely within the realm of contract. The interest may be payable to the petitioner under the Interest Act, but that will depend upon whether the delay caused in payment of contract amount to the petitioner is attributable to the respondents. Any finding or conclusion in that regard can be taken only after appreciating evidence and facts, which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that in a contractual matter of this nature, this Court cannot consider the question of payment of interest. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in _**Thawardas Pherumal and another v. Union of India** [AIR 1955 SC 468]_ . In the said **WP(C).No.24186/2021** **6** judgment Hon’ble Apex Court held that interest will be payable in accordance with the Interest Act. However, the maintainability of a writ petition for payment of interest was not considered in the said judgment. Relying on _**Ravindran v. Public Works Department** [2017 (4) KLT 759]_ , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court had awarded interest to the petitioner in that case. However, it is clear that the question of maintainability of the writ petition for payment of interest alone was not considered in the said judgment. Again, the judgment in _**Punjab National Bank and others v. Atmanand Singh and Others** [2020 (6) SCC 256]_ was one dealing with the question of alternate remedy and whether the High Court can interfere when an alternate remedy is available. The said judgment also did not support the proposition canvassed by the petitioner that a writ petition will be maintainable claiming payment of interest. For all the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner for **WP(C).No.24186/2021** **7** a direction to pay interest on the delayed payment of contractual amount, is unsustainable. The writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. This judgment will not preclude the petitioner from prosecuting Exts.P12 and P13 before the appropriate authorities or from producing any further documents in support of the petitioner’s claim for interest before them. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** SR **WP(C).No.24186/2021** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24186/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3/SEC/1999-2000. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 18/SESC/1999-2000. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 79/EE/9899 DATED 6.2.1999. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 25/EE/9899 DATED 24.7.1996. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHART NO. 79/EE/98-99. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CHART NO. 18/SESC/1999-2000. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHART NO. 31/SESC/1999-2000. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CHART NO. 25/EE/98-99 DATED 24.7.1999. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 2187/2007 DATED 18/1/2007. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 19739/2017 DATED 3/7/2017. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO (RT) 677/07/PWD DATED 15/5/2007. Exhibit P11 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO. PWD-DI/219/2017-PWD DATED 16/6/2017. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2017. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 19/12/2019.**