IMPORTANT POINT
Interim orders must not determine rights without final adjudication; their appealability depends on whether they materially affect the main case.

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 1 st respondent/petitioner had filed the Writ Petition seeking for the following reliefs:

“(i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued commanding the Respondents to make 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 Revised Estimate pending in the office of the 2nd Respondent, 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 can be seen