SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. K.A. JOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 7447 of 2013 against the judgment dated 10.08.2015, whereby interest, on the amount due to the Government, on account of the contract awarded was declined by the learned single Judge. The subject issue in the writ petition was the termination of contract awarded to the writ petitioner, on 28.06.1982 and on account of the termination, the appellants have raised a demand to remit an amount of Rs.3,32,550/- presumably in terms of the contract and the relevant provisions of PWD manual in respect of awarding contracts by the Government. Initially, Ext.P2 notice was issued raising the demand for principal amount only, and no demand was raised for interest. The said demand was challenged before this Court by filing OP No. 10188 of 1983, which was dismissed. Eventhough an appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner, it was also dismissed as per judgment dated 19.06.1990 in W.A. No. 348 of 1990, however leaving open the liberty of the writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court challenging the termination of contract. Apparently, the writ petitioner filed O.S. No. 532 of 1990 before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur and the said suit was decreed declaring that the termination was illegal. Aggrieved, the State filed an appeal as A.S. No. 98 of 1996 before this Court and in the said appeal, the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, Ext.P6 demand notice and Ext. P7 recovery notices were issued wherein the amount claimed was Rs.15,10,104/- inclusive of interest. It was challenging the said demand that the writ petition in question was filed primarily on the ground that in the original revenue recovery demand i.e., Ext.P2, no demand for interest was raised. Further, it is contended that the amount is claimed as damages and there is no determination of liability and therefore, the liability itself is questionable. Anyhow, from the judgment of the learned single Judge, it is evident that the writ petitioner was prepared to pay the principal amount, and it was submitted before the learned single Judge that already an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited. The learned single Judge, thereupon, held that normally the interest could be levied based on the determination of liability and for the delay in payment, and further observed that the writ petitioner made a request before the Superintending Engineer to waive interest, which was rejected as per Ext.P14. However, relying upon Ext.P12, a communication issued in the year 2011 in a similar situation against one P.O. Paulose, the learned single Judge found that the Superintending Engineer only demanded principal amount without claiming interest and therefore, the recovery against the petitioner towards the interest will be discriminatory. It is this portion of the judgment that is under challenge in the writ appeal.

(2.) We have heard Sri. Surin George Ipe, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri. Philip J Vettickattu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner and have perused the pleadings and documents on record.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader basically addressed the arguments relying upon Section 6 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 ('the Act, 1968' for short) dealing with "the interest on arrears of public revenue due on land", which stipulates that "arrears of public revenue due on land shall bear interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum or at such other rate as may be notified by the Government from time to time in the Gazette." Harping upon the said provision, learned Senior Government Pleader contended that eventhough there is no specific provision made in the contract entered into by and between the parties for recovery of interest against any amount due to the Government on account of the termination of the contract, the aforesaid statutory provision will have to be read into the contract, since the Government or any authority functioning under the Government is entitled to enter into a contract overlooking a statutory provision.