Kerala High Court
State Poverty Eradication Mission ... vs Isha Learning Systems Pvt. Ltd on 29 November, 2025
WA NO. 299/2023 1
2025:KER:92448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
SATURDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 299 OF 2023
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2021 IN WP(C)
NO.35916/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 STATE POVERTY ERADICATION MISSION (KUDUMBASHREE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KUDUMBASHREE
STATE MISSION OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, TRIDA
REHABILITATION BUILDING, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011
2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
STATE POVERTY ERADICATION MISSION (KUDUMBASHREE)
STATE MISSION OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, TRIDA
REHABILITATION BUILDING, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011
3 DIRECTOR (FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION)
STATE POVERTY ERADICATION MISSION KUDUMBASHREE
STATE MISSION OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, TRIDA
REHABILITATION BUILDING, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV.SRI.TEKCHAND, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
WA NO. 299/2023 2
2025:KER:92448
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):
ISHA LEARNING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND LEAD
CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT, MR.SATYENDRA YADAV, 14,
BHATTARAHALI, OLD MADRAS ROAD, K.R.PURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 049.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.11.2025,
THE COURT ON 29.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 299/2023 3
2025:KER:92448
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 16 March 2021 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.35916 of 2016. Appellants are the Respondents in the W.P.(C).
2. Respondent had filed the W.P.(C) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st Appellant State Poverty Eradication Mission (Kudumbashree), to release an amount of Rs.54,96,000/- towards the second phase of payment claimed to be due under Ext.P1 agreement.
3. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment directed the 1st Appellant to release the said amount within a period of 2 months from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved Appellants are before us in Appeal.
4. Heard Sri.V.Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader for the Appellants and Sri.Millu Dandapani, Advocate for the Respondent.
5. On behalf of the Appellants, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in directing to effect 40% payment to the Respondent under phase II. It is contended that such a direction could not have been issued WA NO. 299/2023 4 2025:KER:92448 without considering the terms and conditions of Ext.P1 agreement in its entirety. The agreement, even as of date, has not been performed and the clauses thereof have been honoured only in their breach. The clause envisaging payment under phase II ought not to have been considered in isolation. The Respondent already having realised 25%, allowing the prayer of the Respondent would amount to permitting them to walk away with 65% of the amounts under Ext.P1 in spite of the fact that the agreement remains unperformed. Any further payments to the Respondent, without the objectives of the agreement being met, would cause a huge loss to the exchequer.
6. The learned Single Judge ought not have treated clause 3.1 (iii) of Ext.P1 agreement as one laying down a time scale for effecting payment. The said clause had no such purpose or intent. The same was only a general payment schedule. The Respondent, upon signing the agreement and after receiving phase I, which constitutes 25% of the amount, preferred a belated invoice for the 2nd instalment. No claim has been preferred by the Respondent to date as regards the third and fourth phases mentioned in clause 3.1 (iii). The said fact by itself would reveal the lack of bona fides in seeking the 2 nd instalment, after substantial delay. The attempt is only to release 40% in addition to 25% and leave the agreement unperformed.
WA NO. 299/2023 5
2025:KER:92448
7. Appellants placed reliance on the dictum in State of Kerala and others v. M.K.Jose [2015 KHC 4534] and M.P.Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited and others [(2023) 2 SCC 703], to buttress the contention that the writ court ought to have refrained from entertaining petitions involving contractual breaches involving disputed factual issues.
8. The learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is valid, proper and does not call for any interference. Ext.P1 agreement stipulated payment of 40% as the second phase after one month of starting training. The same had become due upon compliance with the mandates specified and the learned Single Judge had only taken note of the same and directed payment of the said amount. The mandates for such payment had admittedly been met.
9. According to the learned counsel, the contention that the agreement stands unperformed is incorrect. There has been full performance of the agreement on the part of the Respondent. Training had been conducted and certificates were issued as envisaged. Placements too had been made as stipulated. Timely review of the progress of the work, which was the lookout of the 1st Appellant, was carried out to their satisfaction. The 1 st Appellant WA NO. 299/2023 6 2025:KER:92448 themselves had admitted that a certain number of people had been trained, placed and appointed in various establishments in furtherance of the agreement. Thus the performance of the contract has been complete and substantial. The right to claim further payments due under the agreement had not been waived, but stood reserved. The second phase of payment alone was sought in the W.P., as the same could be independently and distinctly claimed as per the terms of the agreement, as rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge.
10. The agreement required the Respondent to establish centres in various Districts by expending substantial money. Hence, the clause regarding time-scheduled payment in Ext.P1 agreement was tailor-made to suit the nature of the agreement. The learned Single Judge had validly directed payment of 40% after duly noting that the mandates for paying the same stipulated in the agreement had been scrupulously met. The judgment warranted no interference.
11. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth.
12. The only reasoning for directing payment of 40% of the amount discernible from the judgment is that the Respondent became entitled to seek payment upon performance of the second phase of the agreement. Apart from the same, no reasoning is stated for directing payment of Rs.54,96,000/- to the WA NO. 299/2023 7 2025:KER:92448 Respondent.
13. The learned Single Judge had proceeded as if the payment of 40% is an indefeasible statutory right that needs to be confirmed by way of writ. The stipulation in the agreement was only a schedule of payment. The contract is for performance of the agreement wholly, and not to create rights irrespective of the other stipulations. The liability to pay thus cannot be one to be complied with on a piecemeal basis.
14. Moreover, Ext.P1 is not a statutory contract. There is no admission by the Appellants that the agreement stood performed or that any amounts are admittedly due from them. In fact the learned Single Judge has noted that the appellants have contentions to address. It is trite that no writ would lie to compel a state entity to make payment under a contract as long as there is no admission regarding the amounts claimed. The very entitlement to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus directing payment of an admitted amount under a statutory contract is not seen substantiated.
15. As laid down in MP Power Management (supra), though a statute may expressly or impliedly confer power on a statutory body to enter into contracts to enable it to discharge its functions, disputes arising from the same are to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract. The 1st Appellant, WA NO. 299/2023 8 2025:KER:92448 though, is a state within the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution; every act of such an entity need not necessarily involve an exercise of statutory power, entitling it to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus.
16. The learned Single Judge directed payment of 40% of the amount only for the reason that the Respondent became entitled to such payment upon completing the part of the contract involving training of a required number of candidates. The said reasoning is not legally sufficient to justify a direction to effect payment in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Writ Appeal is thus allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. All legal remedies and contentions available to the parties are left open to be agitated by them, if so advised, by initiating appropriate proceedings.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M JUDGE csl WA NO. 299/2023 9 2025:KER:92448 APPENDIX OF WA NO. 299 OF 2023 APPELLANTS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 True copy of the Agreement between the IST Appellant and the respondent in the Writ Appeal dated 30.09.2014 ANNEXURE A2 True copy of minutes of the meeting on 03.04.2025 ANNEXURE A2(a) The English translation of the malayalam portion of A2 Annexure A3 Report on PUNARJANI Project implemented by Kudumbashree RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(a) True copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Appellant and respondent dated 03.04.2025 along with the English translation