Public authorities should not rely on technical pleas to defeat legitimate claims, and delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse an amount of Rs.7,50,758/-to the petitioners in connection with the contract work carried out by their father; and for a further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay 12% of interest on the amount due to the petitioners from the date of submission of the bill to the date of payment.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioners' father was a PWD Contractor. The respondents awarded the work of construction of a protection wall on the bank of Karamana river to one PWD contractor K. Muraleedharan. But, the said contractor could not execute the work and thereupon, he executed a power of attorney assigning the work in the name of the petitioner’s father and accordingly with the permission of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Thiruvananthapuram—respondent No.2, an agreement was executed by the petitioners' father. The issue arose when the original contractor Sri. K. Muraleedharan was imposed with a liability by the respondents in some other contract. The Government attempted to recover the liability of K. Muraleedharan from the bill amount of the petitioners’ father, consequent to which their father filed O.S. No. 1749 of 2003 before the Munsiff’s Court, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from withholding or adjusting any amount due to the petitioners’ father from the contract in question towards the liability of Sri. K. Muraleedharan.

3. The said suit was dismissed; however, the appeal, A.S. No. 383 of 2005 filed before the Court of IInd Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram was decreed as per Exhibit P1 judgment dated 03.01.2009. In the meanwhile, petitioners’ father submitted 3 bills during the course of work and the second bill amounting to Rs.11,99,333/-was withheld on the ground that Sri. K. Muraleedharan was liable to pay amounts to the Government in some other contract. The liability of Sri. K. Muraleedharan was later re-fixed at Rs.7,50,758/-and the respondents released only Rs.4,48,475/-to the petitioners’ father, as per the cheque bearing No.108257 dated 24.04.2009.

4. The further case of the petitioners is that even though a second Appeal, RSA No. 214 of 2011 was filed by the Government, it was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the father of the petitioners died, and consequently the amount became due to the petitioners being successors in interest. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention is that the petitioners are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.7,50,758/-from the respondents.

5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent virtually admitting the facts and figures and the order of prohibitory injunction passed by the Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram restraining the respondents from realising the amounts from the bill submitted by the petitioners’ father towards the liability of Sri. K. Muraleedharan, previous contractor. However, it is submitted that the claim raised by the petitioner is barred by law of limitation.

6. I have heard Sri. T. Rajasekharan Nair for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt. Deepa Narayanan, and perused the pleadings and material on record.

7. The short question that emerges for consideration is whether the State Government is entitled to invoke the ground of limitation against the dues remaining to be paid to a contractor. It is true, insofar as a money claim is concerned, only a period of 3 years is available for the recovery of the amounts for a private person. However, the State Government has got a period of 30 years, by virtue of Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to recover any amounts, when the period of limitation would begin to run under the Act against a like suit by a private person.

8. In my considered opinion, the original contract carried out by Sri. K. Muraleedharan was assigned in favour of the p