Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Background:

1. The petitioner, a contractor, was awarded some civil works in 1982 by the Government, the respondent. In course of time, about the execution of the work, there arose certain differences between the contracting parties. Under the terms of the contract, the dispute was referred to an arbitrator. As the dispute involved two civil works, the arbitrator eventually passed two awards, in the contractor's favour.

(a) Awards Challenged:

2. Aggrieved, the Government filed two petitions under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940: O.P. (Arb.) No. 82 of 1993 and O.P.(Arb.) No. 94 of 1993. On merits, the Court of the Principal Sub-Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, upheld the awards through judgment, dt. 17.01.1994.

(b) Appeals Before this Court:

3. Further aggrieved, the Government filed these appeals: M.F.A. Nos. 648 of 1996 and 1220 of 1997. Much water has flowed under the judicial bridges thereafter.

4. This Court, per a Division Bench, allowed M.F.A No. 648 of 1996 in part by judgment, dt. 17.12.2002; it set aside the award regarding Claim A. On 11.12.2002 the Court allowed M.F.A No. 1240 of 1997, too: it set aside the award as regards claims A & B. So, in both the cases, there was a partial modification.

(c) The Supreme Court's Order:

5. Challenging these judgments, the claimant-not the Government-moved the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6429 of 2003 and 6431 of 2003. On 10.11.2009 both the appeals were allowed. The common order reads:

"These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 17.12.2002.

Heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has proceeded on a wrong basis. We agree with this submission. Hence while we set aside the impugned judgment we give liberty to the appellant to file Review Petitions in the High Court. All questions of law will remain open in the Review provided they come within the scope of the review.

The Civil Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

(emphasis added)

(d) Review Petitions:

6. Given the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the contractor filed R.P. No. 1040 of 2010 in M.F.A No. 648 of 1996 and R.P. No. 903 of 2010 in M.F.A No. 1220 of 1997. By a common order passed on 24.11.2010, a Division Bench of this Court closed the review petitions as unnecessary. It directed that these appeals be posted for fresh hearing and disposal as per roster. The common order thus passed reads:

"Having carefully gone through Annexure A order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India and having heard the submissions of Smt. S. Karthika, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners and Sri. V.T.K. Mohanan, learned Senior Government Pleader, we are convinced that under Annexure A order, the judgment dated 11.12.2002 in M.F.A.120/1997 and the judgment dated 17.12.2002 in M.F.A No. 648/1996 passed by this Court have been set aside. According to us it can be construed that both these M.F. As have been relegated by the Apex Court for fresh consideration by this Court. In that view of the matter, we find that these review petitions are unnecessary and accordingly, we close these Review Petitions.

Post both the M.F. As before appropriate bench as per roster for fresh hearing and disposal."

(emphasis added)

7. From the above common order, we gather that the learned Division Bench has concluded-rightly, in our respectful opinion -that the Supreme Court set aside the judgment dated 11.12.2002 in M.F.A. No. 1220 of 1997 and the judgment dated 17.12.2002 in M.F.A. No. 648 of 1996. But the Division Bench went further and "construed that both these M.F. As have been relegated by the Apex Court for fresh consideration by this Court." So the Division Bench found the review petitions to be "unnecessary"; accordingly, it closed them. It has directed the Registry to post both the appeals -M.F.A. Nos. 648 of 1996 and 1220 of 1997- for fresh hearing.

8. The appeals thus listed before us, we took them up for he