This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking direction to the respondents to effect

immediate payment of the amounts due under a contract

to the petitioner as requested in Ext.P5 representation

along with interest for the delay in payment as

provided in the Interest Act, 1978. Brief material

facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as

follows:

2.

Petitioner is a Government contractor engaged

in the execution of works for the Public Works

Department of the State Government. Petitioner has

undertaken the construction of official residence for

Chief Secretary to the State Government, the multi-

storied building of 10 class rooms in the Blind School,

Vazhuthacaud, 9 class rooms for SMV High School,

Thiruvananthapuram and the new building for Government

HSS, Punnala, in terms of Ext.P2 agreement executed by

and between the parties. The case of the petitioner is

that, even though work was completed and three bills

were presented covering Rs.2.18 Crores in part, during

September, 2016, December, 2016 and February, 2017,

payment has been awarded only during July, 2017. The

balance bills are still pending. According to the

3

petitioner, now the petitioner has completed the work

and has submitted the final bill, however, the payment

is protracted by saying one reason or other. It is also

submitted that, in spite of submission of Ext.P5

representation, no action is initiated to release the

amounts to the petitioner.

3.

The 3^rd respondent has filed a detailed

counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and claims

and demands raised by the petitioner. It is submitted

that, there is no delay on the part of the Department

in paying the bills and the bills were timely paid to

the petitioner. The details of the payment made to the

petitioner are also provided in the counter affidavit.

That apart, it is submitted that, the bills pending

were presented and payments are made strictly on

seniority basis. That apart, it is submitted that, as

per the terms and conditions of agreement executed by

and between the parties, there is a clear stipulation

that petitioner will not claim interest even if there

is delay on the part of the Government in paying the

part bills or final bills.

4.

A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner,

reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and

also submitted that, the covenants entered into by and

4

between the parties that the petitioner will not claim

interest for delayed payment will have to be read down

to mean that, if the payment is made within a

reasonable period, petitioner will not make any claim

for interest.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions made

across the Bar, and perused the pleadings and the

documents on record.

6.

Taking into account the contentions put forth

by the respective parties, it is clear that, there is

no dispute with respect to the amounts due to the

petitioner. However, the contention basically advanced

by the learned Government Pleader is that, the payment

is to be made strictly in accordance with the seniority

and the petitioner cannot insist for payment

overlooking the seniority list prepared for the purpose

of effecting payment to the contractors. Learned

Government Pleader has invited my attention to the Full

Bench judgment of this Court in 'Anirudhan & Others v.

State of Kerala & Others' [1999 (2) K.L.J 252], wherein

the issue with respect to the seniority in the matter

of payment of bills was considered, and held as follows

in paragraph 19:

5

“19. It is held by decisions of court that

an executive agency must be vigorously held to

the standards by which it professes its action to

be judged. This principle has been accepted by

the apex court in many cases. Having regard to

the explicit terms of Art.180 of the Kerala

Financial Code and 15 of the Kerala PWD Manual,

it is clear that Government are duty bound to

make payments to the work completed. The

aforesa