Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 354 (KER)

Vinod K. R. v. Corporation of Cochin

2017-02-20

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner claims to be a contractor who is undertaking civil works for the Corporation of Cochin. He has filed this writ petition because he was not paid the bills submitted by him after completion of his works. According to him, he was unfairly discriminated and refused payment without any reason and that such action amounts to arbitrariness and capriciousness at the hands of the public authorities. 2. I have heard Sri. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. I do not propose to go into the details of the facts in this case because I am told that pending this writ petition, the entire amounts due to the petitioner has already been paid. Normally, in such circumstances, no further orders would have been required. 4. However, I think this is a case where there are some issues which are distressing to the conscience of this Court. 5. I see that, on 04.03.2009, a submission was made on behalf of the Corporation that the entire amounts due to the petitioner had been paid. About a week later, it is recorded by this Court that submission did not appear to be true. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time mostly at the request of the Corporation and finally, various excuses were given by the Corporation in not making payment in spite of the statement made by them earlier. This has obviously forced the petitioner to seek interest for the delay in making payment and I think he is completely justified. 6. I understand the plight of the petitioner and I do not know what can be done when submissions are made before this Court and then it is later found that such submissions are not factually credible. It becomes very difficult for this Court to accept statements made on behalf of the public authorities if such statements are not credible. I say no more because I am aware that the constraints of jurisdictional domain of this Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would forbear me from making any orders as to payment of interest in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as I would like to do so. I say no more because I am aware that the constraints of jurisdictional domain of this Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would forbear me from making any orders as to payment of interest in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as I would like to do so. I am prima facie of the opinion that this is a case where the petitioner should be entitled to interest for the delay at least from the date on which it was recorded before this Court that his payments have been made. However, for the reasons that I have stated above acknowledging my constraints of jurisdiction, I restrain from making any further orders or any further observations. 7. I, therefore, close this writ petition recording that the petitioner has been paid all his arrears but reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach a court of competent jurisdiction to seek interest for the delay caused by the Corporation of Cochin for the payments made by them and such court, I am sure, would advert to the above observations regarding the unfortunate circumstances in which an attempt was made even to misdirect this Court. 8. Since this writ petition has been pending before this Court for the last more than seven years, the petitioner may face a problem in filing a suit on account of the law of limitation that operate against him. Since the entire delay is attributable only to the fact that this writ petition was being considered by this Court, it is only appropriate that the court below, if approached by the petitioner through an application, consider excluding the entire period during which this writ petition was pending here, namely, from 28.01.2009 till the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I am sure that the competent court will rise to the occasion and consider this issue in terms of law and in the spirit of the observations contained in this judgment. 9. The writ petition is ordered as above. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.