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
