The present petition was filed by the two sons of the contractor, as the contractor had passed away.
The petitioners’ father was a PWD Contractor. The Irrigation Department had awarded some construction work to another PWD contractor, one K Muraleedharan. However, Muraleedharan could not execute the work and, therefore, he executed a power of attorney assigning the work in the name of the petitioner’s father.
Accordingly with the permission of the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department, an agreement was executed by the petitioners’ father.
The issue arose when the original contractor Muraleedharan was imposed with liability by the Irrigation Department in some other contract. The government attempted to recover the liability of Muraleedharan from the bill amount of the petitioners’ father.
Subsequently, the petitioners’ father approached the Munsiff’s Court, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the government from withholding or adjusting any amount due to the petitioners’ father towards the liability of Muraleedharan. Even though the Munsiff court dismissed the case, the Additional District Court decreed its appeal in favour of the petitioners’ father.
However, the government only paid a portion of what was claimed by the petitioners’ father in the bills submitted by him and said that the rest needed to be adjusted against Muraleedharan’s dues.
Meanwhile, the government moved an appeal before the High Court and the same was later dismissed, effectively upholding the Additional District Court’s order of prohibitory injunction restraining the government from realising the amounts from the bill submitted by the petitioners’ father towards the liability of Muraleedharan.
Thereafter, the father of the petitioners died, and consequently, the amount became due to the petitioners being successors in interest.
This prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court with the present plea seeking a direction to the Irrigation Department to disburse an amount of ₹7,50,758 to the petitioners in connection with the contract work carried out by their father. The petitioner also sought an interest of 12 percent per annum on the amount.
The Irrigation Departments in their counter affidavit admitted the facts and figures, but they submitted that the claim raised by the petitioner was barred by the law of limitation.
Source: Barandbench
