1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 19.11.2013 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7979 of 2008. Appellant was the 1st respondent in the W.P.(C), and respondents 1 to 4 were the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4, respectively. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the petitioner, a contractor who had been awarded five contract works valued at Rs.4,17,40,288/- under NABARD aided Thrissur Kole Development Project during 1996-98. Disputes arose between the parties regarding execution of the works, and the contracts were terminated. Petitioner raised a claim for Rs.2,05,39,797/- from the respondents and also initiated litigation before this Court. The litigation was of no avail, and both the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal were dismissed. Later, a Government - appointed adjudicator adjudicated the dispute between the parties and submitted adjudication reports wherein it was inter alia concluded that the petitioner is entitled to realise from the 1st respondent an amount of Rs.90,49,387/- together with interest. Alleging that there was a delay on the part of the respondents in effecting payment of the said amounts the petitioner preferred the above Writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
'(i) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction to the first respondent calling for the records of the case leading up to Ext.P16 and quash Ext.P13 and P13(a);
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith effect payment due to the petitioner as directed in Ext.P6 to P10 awards, as advised in Ext.P14 and directed by the Secretary to the Government, Law Department on 19.06.2007.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to cause a comprehensive inquiry into the conduct of the officials, who were incharge of the works in Exts.P6 to P10, who were instrumental in causing termination of the 5 contracts between 13.07.1999 and 19.07.1999 and to recover the losses caused, from them, to set an example worthy of emulation by others ;
and
(iv) grant such other reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem proper, just, equitable and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case including the costs incurred by the petitioner in these proceedings.'

3. While the said W.P.(C) was pending, Ext.P17 order dated 26.09.2008 was issued by the 1st respondent inter alia deciding to pay Rs.81,27,312/- to the petitioner in full and final settlement of his claim. Petitioner produced the said order in the pending W.P.(C) vide I.A.No.12785 of 2008 and sought a direction for payment of the same along with interest. Pursuant to an interim order dated 07.10.2008 in the said I.A. and in furtherance of Ext.P17 order dated 26.09.2008 an amount of Rs.81,27,312/- was paid to the petitioner by the 1st respondent in full and final settlement of his claim. Ext.P23 letter dated 25.11.2008 recording full and final settlement of the claim, as well as undertaking to withdraw the pending WP (C) was issued by the petitioner. However, after receiving Ext.P25 cheque dated 09.02.2009 for the amount of Rs.81,27,312/-, petitioner preferred Ext. P26 protest letter on the same day ie., on 09.02.2009 itself, inter alia stating that the letter recording full and final satisfaction was submitted due to dire necessity and that he reserves his right to receive the whole awarded amount of Rs.90,49,387/- with interest. The WP (C) was not withdrawn as undertaken and was pursued further by the petitioner. Petitioner contended in the Writ Petition that Ext. P23 letter was issued under duress and compulsion. The learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P.(C) vide the impugned judgment inter alia holding that the adjudicator had passed the 'arbitral awards' dated 30.06.2005, directing the respondents to effect payment of Rs.90,49,