ANIRUDHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. 4579/98 was filed by the All Kerala Government contractors Association, Trivandrum through its Secretary, G. Anirudhan. The second petitioner is the President of the Kerala Government Contractors Association, Alleppey District. The relief asked for in this Original Petition is for a mandamus directing the Government to allot sufficient funds to clear the arrears due to the contractors of the kerala Public Works and Irrigation Departments in the budget for the year 1998-99 and to pay interest at the rate of 24% on the matured liability after the completion of one month from the date of completion of the work.

(2.) W. A. 1747/98 was filed by All Kerala Government contractors Association, Kannur District Unit represented by its President and by one P. V. Kunhiraman Nambiar of All Kerala Government Contractors association, Kannur District Unit. The Writ Appeal was filed against the judgment in O. P. 15313/97 dated 4. 8. 98 which was filed for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to invite fresh tenders without passing the pending bills of the petitioners and to declare that they are entitled for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount due to them. K. A. Abdul Gafoor, J. by his judgment dated 4. 8. 1998 directed the Government to see that allotment of fund for each of the work tendered is made available to the respective divisions within twelve months from the date of such tender. A further direction was also issued to the State to evolve certain procedure to see that allotment of funds to different divisions, circles and districts shall be in a uniform basis and necessary norms shall be prescribed in this regard within six months from that date.

(3.) W. A. 39/97 was filed by the petitioners in the original Petition against the judgment in O. P. 10671/96 dated 22. 11. 96. The original Petition was disposed of by K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. In that case the complaint was that the Chief Engineer has diverted the funds from one head to another head so as to defeat the rights of the petitioners/ contractors. The learned judge has observed that in the absence of any statutory violation and in the absence of any materials to show that the Chief Engineer has acted arbitrarily, this Court is not justified in granting the relief sought for and dismissed the Original Petition. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal certain directions were issued by the Division Bench on 21. 1. 97 and 18. 3. 97. In the writ Appeal the said judgment of the learned judge is challenged on various grounds.