The Chairman And Managing Director vs Anas Babu B
2025 Latest Caselaw 482 Ker

Kerala High Court

The Chairman And Managing Director vs Anas Babu B on 2 July, 2025

​W.A.No​​.1511 of 2025​                 ​1​           2025:KER:47592​
                                                      ​


              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​

                              WA NO. 1511 OF 2025​
                              ​

            AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2025 IN RP NO.682 OF​
            ​

                          2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA​
                          ​

APPELLANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:​

​

1​ ​ ​HE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR​ T KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,​ ​ TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,​ ​ PIN - 695023​ ​

2​ ​ ​HE CHIEF ENGINEER (P AND CW),​ T KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,​ ​ TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,​ ​ PIN - 695023​ ​

BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN​ ​

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:​ ​

1​ ​ ​NAS BABU B​ A CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACTING, FIRDOUS,​ ​ PANDITS COLONY, KOWDIAR P.O,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003​ ​

2​ ​ ​HE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY​ T GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,​ ​ ​W.A.No​​.1511 of 2025​ ​2​ 2025:KER:47592​ ​

​TATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,​ S THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001​ ​

​HIS​ ​ T WRIT​ ​ APPEAL​​ HAVING​​ BEEN​​ FINALLY​​ HEARD​​ ON​​ 24.06.2025,​ THE COURT ON 02.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​W.A.No​​.1511 of 2025​ ​3​ 2025:KER:47592​ ​

​JUDGMENT​

​Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.​

​The​ ​present​ ​Writ​ ​Appeal​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​5​ ​of​ ​the​​Kerala​​High​

​Court​​Act,​​1958,​​assails​​the​​interim​​order​​dated​​17.03.2025​​passed​

​in​ ​W.P(C)No.4690​ ​of​ ​2020,​​whereby​​the​​learned​​Single​​Judge​​has​

​issued​ ​certain​ ​directions​ ​to​ ​disburse​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​to​ ​the​ ​1​​st​

​respondent/petitioner​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​the​ ​outstanding​ ​amount​ ​to​ ​be​

​paid for the​​construction of bus terminal/shopping​​complex.​

​2.​ ​The​ ​appellants​​herein​​are​​respondents​​2​​and​​3​​in​​the​​Writ​

​Petition.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​​appellants​​submitted​​that​​the​

​ ​s​t​ ​respondent/petitioner​ ​had​ ​filed​ ​the​ ​Writ​ ​Petition​ ​seeking​ ​for​ ​the​

​following reliefs:​

​"​(i)​ ​A​ ​writ​ ​of​​mandamus​​or​​any​​other​​appropriate​​writ,​​order​​or​ ​ irection​ ​be​ ​issued​ ​commanding​ ​the​ ​Respondents​ ​to​ ​make​ d ​immediate​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​pending​ ​4th​ ​Running​ ​Account​ ​bill​ ​amounting​​to​​Rs.​​92,86,912/-​​certified​​for​​payment​​and​​pending​ ​with​ ​the​ ​office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Chairman/Director​ ​right​ ​from​ ​September​ ​2018​​immediately,​​however​​within​​a​​time​​limit​​prescribed​​by​​this​ ​Hon'ble Court.​ ​(ii)​​A​​writ​​of​​mandamus​​or​​any​​other​​appropriate​​writ,​​order​​or​ ​direction​ ​be​ ​issued​ ​commanding​ ​the​ ​Respondents​ ​to​ ​finalise​ ​the​ ​5th​ ​Running​ ​Account​ ​bill,​ ​certify​ ​for​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​up​ ​to​ ​date​ ​work​ ​done​ ​over​ ​and​ ​above​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​covered​ ​by​ ​4​ ​Running​​Account​​bill​​to​​an​​amount​​of​​Rs.​​1.5​​crores​​and​​make​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​same​ ​within​ ​a​ ​time​ ​frame​ ​to​ ​be​ ​fixed​ ​by​ ​this​ ​Hon'ble Court​ ​(ii)​ ​A​ ​writ​ ​of​ ​mandamus​ ​or​​any​​other​​appropriate​​writ,​​order​​or​ ​direction​ ​be​ ​issued​ ​directing​ ​the​ ​Respondents​ ​to​ ​approve​ ​the​ ​W.A.No​​.1511 of 2025​ ​4​ 2025:KER:47592​ ​

​ evised​​Estimate​​pending​​in​​the​​office​​of​​the​​2nd​​Respondent,​ R ​incorporating​​various​​extra​​and​​additional​​items​​done​​as​​per​​the​ ​instructions​ ​of​ ​the​​officers​​of​​the​​Respondents​​including​​all​​the​ ​variations​ ​from​ ​the​ ​original​ ​design​ ​effected​ ​for​ ​proper​ ​completion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​work​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​enable​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​amounts​ ​due​ ​on​ ​account​ ​of​ ​variations​ ​in​ ​quantities​ ​of​ ​the​ ​agreed​ ​items,​ ​extra​ ​and​ ​additional​ ​items​ ​etc.​ ​which​ ​comes​ ​to​ ​nearly Rs. 6.54 Crores.​ ​(iv)​ ​A​​writ​​of​​mandamus​​or​​any​​other​​appropriate​​writ,​​order​​or​ ​direction​ ​be​ ​issued​ ​commanding​ ​the​ ​Respondents​ ​to​ ​afford​ ​facilities​ ​for​ ​completion​ ​of​ ​balance​ ​work​ ​remaining​ ​which​ ​is​ ​around​​10%​​subject​​to​​payment​​of​​pending​​bills​​and​​approval​​of​ ​Revised Estimate as above.​ ​(v)​ ​A​ ​writ​ ​of​ ​mandamus​ ​or​ ​any​ ​other​ ​appropriate​ ​wit,​​order​​or​ ​direction​​bo​​issued​​directing​​the​​Respondents​​to​​reimburse​​the​ ​additional​​amount​​of​​8%,​​Petitioner​​had​​to​​remit​​on​​on​​account​ ​of​ ​GST​ ​introduced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​and​ ​State​ ​Governments​ ​at​ ​12%​ ​after​ ​the​ ​execution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​agreement,​ ​against​ ​4%​ ​VAT​ ​which​ ​only​ ​had​ ​to​ ​be​ ​paid​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​tendering,​ ​award​ ​of​ ​work,​ ​execution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​work​ ​and​ ​in​ ​the​ ​beginning​ ​of​ ​performance of the contract*.​ ​(vi)​ ​A​​writ​​of​​certiorari​​or​​any​​other​​appropriate​​writ,​​order​​or​ ​direction​ ​calling​ ​for​ ​all​ ​the​ ​records​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​imposition​ ​of​ ​fine/penalty​​of​​Rs.​​2,40,000​​(Rs.​​90,000​​from​​3rd​​R.A.​​Bill,​​Rs.​ ​1,50,000​ ​from​ ​4th​ ​R.A.​ ​Bill​ ​still​ ​pending)​ ​levied​ ​on​ ​the​ ​false​ ​pretext​ ​of​ ​delay​ ​as​​if​​caused​​by​​the​​Petitioner​​in​​completion​​of​ ​work​ ​notwithstanding​ ​the​ ​delay​​caused​​by​​the​​Respondents​​in​ ​various respects as stated above and quash the same.​ ​(vii)​ ​Grant​ ​costs​ ​to​ ​the​​Petitioner​​and​​such​​other​​reliefs​​as​​are​ ​prayed​​for​​and​​deemed​​fit​​to​​be​​granted​​in​​the​​circumstances​​of​ ​the case."​

​3.​ ​The​​learned​​Counsel​​for​​the​​appellants​​contended​​that​​the​

​learned​​Single​​Judge​​has​​passed​​the​​impugned​​interim​​order​​dated​

​17.03.2025​ ​directing​ ​the​ ​1​​st​ ​appellant​ ​to​ ​make​ ​the​ ​payment​​of​​an​

​amount​ ​of​ ​Rs.25​ ​lakhs​ ​to​ ​the​ ​1​​st​ ​respondent​ ​on​ ​or​ ​before​

​15.04.2025​ ​and​ ​a​ ​further​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​Rs.25​ ​lakhs​ ​on​ ​or​ ​before​

​15.05.2025,​​which​​travels​​beyond​​the​​scope​​of​​the​​Writ​​Petition,​​as​ ​W.A.No​​.1511 of 2025​ ​5​ 2025:KER:47592​ ​

​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​from​ ​the​ ​interim​ ​prayer​ ​clause,​ ​wherein​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​

​prayer​ ​for​ ​release​ ​of​ ​the​ ​payment.​ ​The​ ​prayer​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Writ​ ​Petition​

​was​ ​only​ ​to​ ​make​ ​immediate​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​pending​ ​4​t​h​ ​Running​

​Account​ ​bill​ ​and​ ​finalise​ ​the​ ​5​​th​ ​Running​ ​Account​ ​Bill​ ​and​ ​for​ ​a​

​further​ ​direction​ ​to​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​to​ ​approve​ ​the​ ​Revised​

​Estimate.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​4th​ ​Running​ ​Bill​ ​was​ ​paid​ ​to​ ​the​

​1st​ ​respondent​ ​during​ ​the​ ​pendency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Writ​ ​Petition​​itself.​​It​​is​

​true​​that​​only​​after​​the​​Writ​​Petition​​is​​finally​​decided​​or​​adjudicated​

​the​ ​appellants​​would​​be​​liable​​to​​pay​​any​​further​​amount​​to​​the​​1st​

​respondent.​ ​Therefore,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​committed​ ​an​

​error​ ​in​ ​directing​ ​the​ ​appellants​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​in​ ​installments​

​through​ ​various​ ​interim​ ​orders,​ ​without​ ​any​ ​adjudication​ ​or​ ​finality​

​having been attained.​

​4.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellants​ ​further​ ​submitted​

​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​dispute​ ​with​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​the​ ​payment​​of​​the​​bills,​​and​

​that​​the​​appellants​​have​​raised​​several​​concerns​​and​​also​​disputed​

​the​ ​correctness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​constructions​ ​carried​ ​out,​ ​as​ ​stated​ ​in​ ​their​

​counter-affidavit,​ ​by​ ​producing​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​records.​ ​Therefore,​ ​in​

​such​ ​a​ ​situation,​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​interim​ ​directions​ ​to​ ​make​ ​the​ ​W.A.No​​.1511 of 2025​ ​6​ 2025:KER:47592​ ​

​payment​ ​without​ ​final​ ​adjudication,​​is​​improper​​and​​liable​​to​​be​​set​

​aside. Therefore, interference by this Court has become necessary.​

​5.​ ​Per​ ​contra,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​respondent​

​opposed​ ​the​ ​afore​ ​prayer​ ​and​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​

​Judge​ ​has​ ​only​ ​directed​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​the​ ​admitted​ ​amounts​ ​through​ ​the​

​interim​ ​order.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​the​ ​settled​ ​legal​ ​position​ ​that​ ​Writ​ ​Appeals​ ​are​

​not​ ​maintainable​ ​against​ ​the​ ​interim​ ​order​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​same​ ​is​ ​of​

​final​​in​​nature.​​The​​learned​​Single​​Judge​​has​​clearly​​spelt​​out​​in​​the​

​order​ ​that​ ​the​ ​interim​ ​directions​ ​issued​ ​will​ ​be​ ​duly​ ​taken​ ​note​ ​of​

​while​ ​finalising​ ​the​ ​final​ ​bill.​ ​Therefore,​ ​the​ ​instant​ ​Appeal​ ​itself​ ​is​

​not maintainable.​

​6.​​Heard​​the​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​parties​​and​​perused​​the​

​records.​

​7.​ ​Admittedly​ ​the​ ​present​ ​appeal​ ​has​ ​been​ ​filed​ ​against​ ​an​

​interim​ ​order​ ​which​​is​​not​​in​​final​​nature.​​However,​​at​​this​​juncture,​

​we​ ​would​ ​like​ ​to​ ​address​ ​ourselves​​how​​the​​Apex​​Court​​dealt​​with​

​the​ ​concept​ ​of​ ​interlocutory​ ​order​ ​while​ ​dealing​ ​with​ ​the​ ​appeals​

​preferred​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Letters​ ​Patent.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​conscious​ ​that​ ​the​

​appeals​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Letters​ ​Patent​ ​are​ ​different​ ​from​ ​the​ ​appeals​ ​W.A.No​​.1511 of 2025​ ​7​ 2025:KER:47592​ ​

​provided​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​Rules,​ ​1971,​ ​but​ ​the​

​decisions​​rendered​​by​​the​​Apex​​Court​​are​​instructive​​to​​understand​

​the​ ​nature​ ​and​ ​character​ ​of​ ​an​ ​interlocutory​ ​order.​ ​In​ ​Midnapore​

​Peoples'​ ​Cooperative​ ​Bank​ ​Ltd.​ ​v.​ ​Chunilal​ ​Nanda​ ​[(2006)​ ​5​

​SCC 399], it has been held as under:​

"​ 16.​ ​Interim​ ​orders/interlocutory​ ​orders​ ​passed​ ​during​ ​the​ ​pendency​​of​​a​​case,​​fall​​under​​one​​or​​the​​other​​of​​the​​following​ ​categories:​

(​ i)​ ​Orders​ ​which​ ​finally​ ​decide​ ​a​ ​question​ ​or​ ​issue​ ​in​ ​controversy in the main case.​

(​ ii)​ ​Orders​ ​which​ ​finally​ ​decide​ ​an​ ​issue​ ​which​ ​materially​ ​and​ ​directly affects the final decision in the main case.​

(​ iii)​ ​Orders​ ​which​ ​finally​ ​decide​ ​a​ ​collateral​ ​issue​ ​or​ ​question​ ​which is not the subject-matter of the main case.​

(​ iv)​ ​Routine​ ​orders​ ​which​ ​are​ ​passed​ ​to​​facilitate​​the​​progress​ ​of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.​

(​ v)​ ​Orders​ ​which​ ​may​ ​cause​ ​some​ ​inconvenience​ ​or​ ​some​ ​prejudice​​to​​a​​party,​​but​​which​​do​​not​​finally​​determine​​the​​rights​ ​and obligations of the parties.​

​ he​ ​term​ ​"judgment"​ ​occurring​ ​in​ ​Clause​ ​15​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Letters​ T ​Patent​​will​​take​​into​​its​​fold​​not​​only​​the​​judgments​​as​​defined​​in​ ​Section​​2(9)​​CPC​​and​​orders​​enumerated​​in​​Order​​43​​Rule​​1​​of​ ​CPC​​,​ ​but​ ​also​ ​other​ ​orders​ ​which,​ ​though​ ​may​ ​not​ ​finally​​and​ ​conclusively​​determine​​the​​rights​​of​​parties​​with​​regard​​to​​all​​or​ ​any​​matters​​in​​controversy,​​may​​have​​finality​​in​​regard​​to​​some​ ​collateral​ ​matter,​ ​which​ ​will​ ​affect​ ​the​ ​vital​ ​and​ ​valuable​ ​rights​ ​and​ ​obligations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​parties.​ ​Interlocutory​ ​orders​ ​which​ ​fall​ ​under​​categories​​(i)​​to​​(iii)​​above,​​are,​​therefore,​​"judgment"​​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​filing​ ​appeals​ ​under​ ​the​​Letters​​Patent.​​On​​the​ ​other​ ​hand,​ ​orders​ ​falling​ ​under​​categories​​(iv)​​and​​(v)​​are​​not​ ​"judgments"​​for​​the​​purpose​​of​​filing​​appeals​​provided​​under​​the​ ​Letters Patent."​ ​W.A.No​​.1511 of 2025​ ​8​ 2025:KER:47592​ ​

​8.​ ​From​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​enunciation​ ​of​ ​law,​ ​there​ ​remains​ ​no​

​scintilla​​of​​doubt​​that​​interlocutory​​orders​​on​​certain​​circumstances,​

​could​ ​be​ ​appealed​ ​against​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Letters​ ​Patent.​ ​Despite​ ​the​

​fact​ ​they​ ​are​ ​interlocutory​ ​in​ ​nature​ ​they​ ​can​ ​be​ ​put​ ​into​ ​the​

​compartment​ ​of​ ​judgment​ ​if​ ​it​ ​affects​ ​the​ ​merits​ ​of​ ​the​ ​case​

​between​​the​​parties​​by​​determining​​some​​rights​​or​​liabilities.​​There​

​can​ ​be​ ​three​ ​categories​ ​of​ ​judgments,​ ​final​ ​judgment,​ ​preliminary​

​judgment​ ​and​ ​intermediary​ ​judgment​ ​or​ ​interlocutory​ ​judgment.​ ​If​

​the​ ​order​ ​finally​ ​decides​ ​the​ ​question​ ​and​ ​directly​ ​affects​ ​the​

​decision​ ​in​ ​the​ ​main​ ​case​ ​or​ ​an​ ​order​​which​​decides​​the​​collateral​

​issue​ ​or​ ​the​ ​question​ ​which​ ​is​ ​not​ ​the​ ​subject​ ​matter​ ​of​ ​the​ ​main​

​case​​or​​which​​determines​​the​​rights​​and​​obligation​​of​​the​​parties​​in​

​a final way indubitably they are appealable.​

​9.​ ​On​ ​perusal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​interim​ ​order​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​

​prayer​​clause​​reproduced​​herein​​above,​​the​​1​​st​ ​respondent​​has​ ​not​

​prayed​ ​for​ ​any​ ​interim​ ​relief​​to​​disburse​​the​​amount.​​Moreover,​​we​

​are​ ​of​ ​the​ ​considered​ ​opinion​ ​that​ ​when​ ​the​ ​appellants​ ​have​

​subsequently​​disputed​​the​​amount,​​the​​learned​​Single​​Judge​​could​ ​W.A.No​​.1511 of 2025​ ​9​ 2025:KER:47592​ ​

​not​ ​have​ ​directed​ ​the​ ​release​ ​of​ ​payments​ ​by​ ​way​ ​of​ ​various​

​interim​​orders​​without​​any​​final​​adjudication.​​As​​per​​the​​judgment​​in​

​Midnapore​ ​Peoples'​ ​Cooperative​ ​Bank​ ​Ltd.​ ​(supra),​ ​the​ ​matter​

​falls within clauses (ii) and (v) of the directions; namely,​

​"​(ii)​ ​Orders​ ​which​ ​finally​ ​decide​ ​an​ ​issue​ ​which​​materially​​and​ ​directly affects the final decision in the main case.​

(​ v)​ ​Orders​ ​which​ ​may​ ​cause​ ​some​ ​inconvenience​ ​or​ ​some​ ​prejudice​​to​​a​​party,​​but​​which​​do​​not​​finally​​determine​​the​​rights​ ​and obligations of the parties."​

​10.​ ​In​​view​​of​​the​​aforesaid,​​the​​order​​passed​​by​​the​​learned​

​Single​ ​Judge​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​upheld​ ​and​ ​accordingly,​ ​the​ ​same​ ​is​

​hereby set aside.​

​The​ ​Writ​ ​Appeal​ ​is​ ​allowed.​ ​No​ ​order​ ​as​ ​to​ ​costs.​ ​However,​

​looking​​into​​the​​urgency​​in​​the​​matter,​​the​​learned​​Single​​Judge​​is​

​requested to decide the Writ Petition as early as possible.​

​Sd/-​

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI​ ​ JUDGE​ ​ ​Sd/-​ SYAM KUMAR V.M.​ ​ JUDGE​ ​ MC/28.6​ ​