ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by the State of Kerala are filed against the orders passed in review petitions. At the outset, we would take note of the fact that the main judgment has not been questioned. 3. On the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 18-9-2002 directed that d the admitted bill amount shall be paid over to the contractors (writ petitioners) by 31-12-2002 "failing which the disputed amount shall carry simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of registration of the respective bills". This direction was given to redress the grievance of the writ petitioner contractors that the payment of bills was delayed enormously. Though this order was passed at the stage of admission, it is not in dispute that the counsel representing the State was heard and that no time was sought for filing counter-affidavit on behalf of the State. Aggrieved by the order dated 18-9-2002, review petitions were filed. Various grounds were taken in the review petitions. The foremost amongst them being that by virtue of clause 69 of the MDSS (Madras Detailed Standard Specifications) forming part of the contract, no interest was payable on the arrears due against the f bills preferred by the contractors. 4. The Division Bench, while disposing of the review petition by the impugned order modified the original order by reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 7%. The petitioner State having not paid the amount within the stipulated date had to bear the interest as per original order of the High Court dated 18-9-2002, as modified by the order in the review petition. That is why g the present SLPs were filed. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State contends that no direction for payment of interest can be legitimately granted in the face of the bar contained in clause 69 more so in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though there is some force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution for more than one reason. 6. Firstly, the question regarding payment of interest was not put in issue in the main writ petitions. Though there is some force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution for more than one reason. 6. Firstly, the question regarding payment of interest was not put in issue in the main writ petitions. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for the Bench deciding the review petitions to go into that question. Secondly, the direction given by the High Court to pay the interest cannot be tested merely by reference to the clause pertaining to interest relied upon by the appellants counsel. The High Court while granting time for payment of admitted amount which was withheld for a considerable time gave an incidental direction that in case of further default, the admitted amount shall carry interest. This is a direction which was meant to ensure that the payment was made to the aggrieved party without further delay. Whether or not the High Court should have entertained the writ petitions under Article 226 pertaining to grievances arising out of a contract is a larger issue which need not be gone into in this case, as the power of the High Court as such has not been challenged at any stage. 7. Another consideration which weighed with us under Article 136 of the Constitution is that it is brought to our notice that in a number of cases the payment of the principal amount as well as the interest as directed by the High Court has been made and in fact this Court in SLP (C) No. 694 of 2001, etc. decided on 21-11-2003 did not interfere with similar orders of the High Court directing payment of interest. 8. For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeals. The amount stated to have been deposited with the High Court of Kerala pursuant to the interim order shall be released to the respondents concerned in these matters. In such cases, where the deposit has not been made, the payment of the disputed amount shall be effected within a period of three months. We would like to observe that nothing said or directed in this order or the orders of the High Court shall preclude the State Government to take such objections as are open to it under law in regard to the maintainability of writ petitions or the liability to pay interest in future.