Judgment :- Ramachandran, J. Delay infilling the writ appeal is condoned. 2. A learned single Judge had disposed of O.P.No.22330 of 2001 on 16.03.2006, whereby a direction had been issued to the Principal, College of Engineer, Thiruvananthapuram (2nd respondent) to take action on Ext. P7 for settling the grievances urged within three months. By Ext. P7 dated 14.07.2000, the appellant/petitioner had requested the said respondent to refund the deposits that had been made by him towards security. The appeal has been filed submitting that positive directions were required to be issued, as a simple examination of the grievances would not have resulted in any advantage. 3. The appellant/petitioner is the proprietor of a business and had responded to the notification issued by the second respondent for supply of certain electrical goods to the college. Contracts had been entered into and during the year 1989-1990 goods had been supplied. As required, a total sum of Rs. 14,787/- had been deposited as security, separately. It is submitted that satisfaction had been entered, but there was failure to refund the security amount. The appellant/petitioner has referred to innumerous requests made, commencing from 1992 onwards. Ext. P7 dated 14.07.2000 is last of the same and the Original Petition was thereafter filed for compelling the respondents to made a refund. 4. The case of the petitioner is that refunds were not made on the plea that records were not traceable, and because of lapse of time, clearance from Audit also might have been necessary. As there was no laches or lapses on the part of the appellant/petitioner, it is contended that the above objections are arbitrary and irrational, and the attempt was to avoid payments. The Government, situated as it is, should not have acted in unfair manner, especially when the amount involved was meagre. 5. We had heard the learned Government Pleader and it is submitted that it would be possible to look into the matter with expedition. However, as pointed out by the appellant/petitioner, even after the judgment of the learned single Judge, there was no positive communication forthcoming. However, Mr.Krishna Mani, counsel for the appellant, points out that because of the change of the individual officers/staff and primarily due to the reluctance in tracing out the records, such an offer may remain stillborn, if not illusory. 6. The appellant had made available to the respondents proof in support of the security deposits. However, Mr.Krishna Mani, counsel for the appellant, points out that because of the change of the individual officers/staff and primarily due to the reluctance in tracing out the records, such an offer may remain stillborn, if not illusory. 6. The appellant had made available to the respondents proof in support of the security deposits. He refers to Banker’s cheque No. BL/24/127025 for Rs. 3900/- and D.D.No.TT/A/ST9589003 for a sum of Rs.2475, in respect of 1989 contract. Call Receipt No.P-555954 for amount of Rs.4206 +Rs.4206 in the State Bank of India in respect of Invoice Nos.97 and 98 dated 06-04-1990 are the other documents. The total amount of deposit comes to Rs.14.787/-. 7. We had adverted to the contentions raised by the Government Pleader vis-à-vis the provisions of the Kerala Financial Code (Volume I). Article 140(i) (e) of the Code is to the following effect: “(e) After a contract has been fulfilled and payment made, the security deposit should be released or refunded to the contractor/firm without delay. As a rule, the security deposit should be released or returned to the contractor within a maximum period of three months of the expiration of the contract. In all cases where there is guarantee for the goods supplied the security deposit will be released only after the expiry of the guarantee period.” Article 56 (b) refers to barred claims, but we do not think that liability of the Government for repayment of security deposit could be brought under such a category. In any case, return of security deposit is not to be classified along with the category of claims dealt with in the article. We also notice that the “important financial principles” to be followed had been enumerated in Article 40 of Chapter III of the Code. It runs as following: “It should be clearly understood that money indisputably payable by Government at one time or other (i.e., inevitable payments) should not, as far as possible, be left unpaid; .. .... all actual liabilities should be ascertained, liquidated and payment recorded at the earliest possible date.” The anxiety of the Government for settlement of outstandings is clear. It is as much as the requirement that there should be a frugal approach in the matter of finance. .... all actual liabilities should be ascertained, liquidated and payment recorded at the earliest possible date.” The anxiety of the Government for settlement of outstandings is clear. It is as much as the requirement that there should be a frugal approach in the matter of finance. Having obtained the benefit of a contract, it may not be proper for the Government or its officers to tell a supplier that the security deposit cannot be returned, as the basic documents are misplaced or that there is delay in claiming the amounts back. Such a conduct may be considered as personification of inefficiency. Especially when the appellant had made available sufficient records in support of her claims, and when there were no laches from their side, it was not fair for the respondents to deny payments. 8. We direct that within a period of two months from today, the amount of Rs. 14,787/-, deposited with the Government as security, is to be returned to the appellant/petitioner. It is for the respondents had not the appellant to comply with whatever formalities that may be essential, as appellant’s eligibility is undisputed and even as of now she has been driven to exhaustion. The Writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction. There will be no order as to costs.