Kerala HC seeks State's response on non-payment of AI camera contractor dues

The Kerala High Court on Monday sought the State government's response to a petition alleging non-payment of dues to the contractor responsible for installing and maintaining AI traffic cameras under the Safe Kerala Project's Automated Traffic Enforcement system.

When the matter came up before Justice Ziyad Rahman AA, counsel for the petitioner, SRIT India Ltd, submitted that payments remain pending despite the project being fully operational across the State.

The Court orally asked whether there was any dispute regarding the outstanding payments, observing, "Is it only a case of non-payment? Is the payment itself in dispute?"

In response, the petitioner's counsel said there was no dispute over the amounts due and pointed out that the State had previously acknowledged the liability in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the present Chief Minister VD Satheesan and Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala.

The counsel further submitted that the company had invested ₹151 crore in the project, including a security deposit of ₹6 crore, and continues to spend around ₹40 lakh every month on maintenance of the cameras.

It was also pointed out that while the PIL was pending, a Division Bench had directed the State to release the quarterly instalments due to the petitioner, and the payments were made accordingly. However, after the PIL was disposed of recently, the State allegedly stopped releasing the instalments, claiming there were no longer any court directions requiring such payments.

Highlighting the financial burden on the company, the petitioner's counsel said that additional expenditure would now be required for monsoon-related maintenance. "The monsoon has arrived and I have to undertake maintenance work. Every month, I am spending ₹40 lakh from my own pocket, apart from the ₹151 crore already invested. If there were any dispute regarding the payment, I could understand. But there is absolutely none. The counter affidavits are already on record. These amounts were being paid continuously. This Court only granted permission for the release of funds. The PIL has since been disposed of in our favour, rejecting all contentions raised against the project," he submitted.

Seeking further clarification, the Court again asked whether there was any dispute over the payments, to which the petitioner's counsel reiterated that there was none.

The Court then granted time until Friday for the Government Pleader to obtain instructions from the State regarding the reasons for withholding the payments.

The petitioner is represented by Advocates Shyam Padman (Senior), Sidharth G, CM Andrews, Laya Mary Joseph, Ashwathi Shyam, Swathy Sudhir, Shimleel Ibrahim T, and S Anupama.

(With LiveLaw Inputs)