Kerala High Court
K.C. Antony vs Biju.K Ias on 2 July, 2025
Con.Case(C)No.560 of 2024 1 2025:KER:47572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
ND
WEDNESDAY, THE 2
DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA,
1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 560 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2023 IN WA NO.2319 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN THE W.A.:
.C. ANTONY
K
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. LATE CHACKO, CONTRACTOR, KAITHACKAL HOUSE,
CHEMMALAMATTOM PO, ERATTUPETTA VIA.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686508
BY ADV SHRI.ANISH JOSE ANTONY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN THE W.A.:
1 IJU.K IAS B AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 JITH RAMACHANDRAN A AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS AND BRIDGES, PUBLIC OFFICES, MUSEUM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, Con.Case(C)No.560 of 2024 2 2025:KER:47572 PIN - 695033 3 IMALA V R V AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS AND BRIDGES), SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 4 OSE RAJAN K J AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD(ROADS AND BRIDGES), KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001 5 ABU.R S AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, OLD PWD STORE COMPOUND, PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN PO, BEHIND BSNL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 BY ADV SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP HIS T CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2025,THE COURT ON 02.07.2025 DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: Con.Case(C)No.560 of 2024 3 2025:KER:47572 JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 11, 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging non compliance of the judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed inW.A.No.2319 of 2019. 2. The petitioner had filed the writ appeal challenging the termination of the contract as well the claim of the bills for the work executedbythepetitionerincludingthereleaseofsecuritydeposit.The Division Bench of this Court dealt with the issue of payment of undisputed amount as well as releaseofsecuritydepositinparagraph No.4 of the judgment which is reproduced below: " 4. Admittedly, as per 7th and part bill, the appellant was entitled to Rs.58,23,726/-.AsseenfromAnnexure-A12,PWD already collected this amount from NABARD. It is also admittedintheaffidavitfiledalongwithI.A.No.2/2022byPWD beforethisCourton3/12/2019thatasumofRs.13,09,411/-is due under the 8th and final bill. As seenfromAnnexure-A10 producedalongwithI.A.No.1/2022inthewritappeal,asumof Rs.2,42,688.77 has been quantified as damage suffered. No other claim has been raised by PWD from the appellant. No one has a case that the new contractor engaged after the termination of the contract with the appellant has done the work covered by the part and 7th bill and 8th and final bill above." 3. ThereaftertheDivisionbenchdisposedofthewritappealwith the following direction: Con.Case(C)No.560 of 2024 4 2025:KER:47572 " 9. We, in such circumstances, are of the view that the admittedamountunderpartand7thand8thandfinalbills,be released to the appellant, except the amount calculated towardsdamagesandloss.Thesecuritydepositandanyother amount payable to the appellant towards performance guarantee as per the contract also be released to the appellant.Wemakeitclearthat,iftheappellanthasanyother claim,otherthanthatoftheadmittedamountsasaboveunder part and 7th and 8th and final bills including the withheld amount,hecanapproachthecivilcourt.Withlibertyasabove, we dispose of this appeal. Needful shall be done to comply with the direction to release the amount as above to the Construction Corporation within one month.TheConstruction Corporation, on receipt of the amount, shall release the amount to the appellant within afurtherperiodofonemonth. No costs." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had admitted that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.58,23,726/- as per the 7th part billandalsoadmittedthatasumof Rs.13,09,411/- is due under the 8th and final bill. Therefore the respondents are obliged topaythepetitioneratotalsumamountingto Rs.71,33,137/-.Moreover,the5threspondenthasnotpaidthesecurity deposit. Therefore, the judgmenthasnotbeenfullycompliedwith.Itis submitted that contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondents for willful disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court. 5.Percontra,learnedcounselappearingforrespondents3and4 has drawn our attention to a statement filed on their behalf in compliance with the order dated 22.01.2025, particularlyparagraphs3 and 4, which are reproduced below: Con.Case(C)No.560 of 2024 5 2025:KER:47572 " 3. It is submitted that, the cheque amount of 7th part bill of Rs.41,47,647/-wascreditedtoPWDepositon24.12.2019and 8th and final bill amount of Rs.9,61,058/- was also transfer creditedtothedepositon30.03.2020.Hence,thetotalcheque amount comes to Rs.51,08,705/- covered by CC 7thand8th and final bills. The 7th part bill was finalized after deducting statutory recoveries and also for surrendering the excess amount of Rs.17,27,112/- claimed in the said bill. 4. Itissubmittedthattheamountcoveredby7thand8thand final bills was sanctioned for the release of Rs.48,66,016/- deducting the risk and cost amount of Rs.2,42,689/- to Construction Corporation as per proceedings dated 27.04.2023." 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the total amount of Rs.51,08,705/- covered by 7th and 8thandfinalbillhavebeenpaidafterfinalizinganddeductingstatutory recoveries amounting to Rs.17,27,112/-. Therefore, they are not liable to pay Rs.71,33,137/-, which is claimed by the petitioner. There is no disobedienceatalloftheorderspassedbythisCourt.Incase,thereis any dispute with respect to other claims, petitioner is required to approach the Civil Court for its adjudication. ThisCourtcannotgointo the disputed questions of fact and direct payment. Accordingly this contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for thepetitionersubmitted thathemaybegrantedlibertytoapproachtheCivilCourtinrespectof theoutstandingamounts.Sofarastherefundofthesecuritydepositof Rs.5,38,697/- is concerned, the same has not been paid by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent has notsufferedanylossordamage, Con.Case(C)No.560 of 2024 6 2025:KER:47572 nor has he made any claim against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to gettherefundoftheaforesaidamountfromthe 5th respondent. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. So far as payment of Rs.71,33,137/- is concerned, the respondents 3 and 4 have already paid an amount of Rs.51,08,705/- towards 7th, 8th and final bill after deducting statutory recoveries Therefore, it appears that the admitted amount has alreadybeenpaid to the petitioner.Insofarastheotherdisputedamountsareconcerned, they have not been adjudicated by thelearnedSingleJudgeorbythe DivisionBenchofthisCourt.Inanycase,thedisputedamountscannot be adjudicated in a proceeding underArticle226oftheConstitutionof India. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court. 10. So far as the non payment of security deposit of Rs.5,38,697/-isconcerned,the5threspondentisdirectedtorefundthe same as expeditiously as is possible, preferably within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Since no representationismadeonbehalfofthe5threspondent,thepetitioneris directed to serve a copy of this judgment to the 5th respondent by Con.Case(C)No.560 of 2024 7 2025:KER:47572 speed post within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copyofthisjudgmentforenablinghimtocomplywiththeorderpassed by this Court. 11. In case the 5th respondent does not comply with the order withinthetimespecifiedbythisCourt,thepetitionershallbeatlibertyto file appropriate applications seeking revival of the contempt petition, insofarastherefundofthesecuritydepositamountingtoRs.5,38,697/- is concerned. Accordinglywedonotfindanywillfuldisobedienceonthepartof the respondents. In fact as per the averments made in paragraphs 3 and4ofthestatementfiledbythe3rdand4threspondents,primafacie it appears that order has been complied by them. Accordingly the contemptcasestandsdisposedoffinally.Therulenisiissuedishereby discharged. Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE MC /28.6 Con.Case(C)No.560 of 2024 8 2025:KER:47572 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 560/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 ERTIFIED C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2023 PASSED BY THISHON'BLECOURT IN WA NO.2319/2019 ON THEFILESOF THE LEARNED DIVISION BENCHOF THISHON'BLE COURT, Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.08.2019 IN W.P. (C) NO. 4786/2019 Annexure A3 TRUE COPYOF THE PROCEEDINGOFTHE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2023 Annexure A4 TRUE COPYOF THE DEPOSITRECEIPTTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.04.2018 Annexure A5 TRUE COPYOF THE FIXEDDEPOSITRECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.06.2019 Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON 21.04.2023 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R3(a) rue T copy of the judgment dated 28.03.2018 in WPC 2794/2018 and 7061/2018 Annexure R3(b) True copy of the judgment dated 30.10.2018 in WPC 31046/2018