Thiruvananthapuram: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday suo motu impleaded the Road Safety Commissioner in a writ petition filed by SRIT India Ltd, alleging non-payment for the installation and maintenance of AI traffic cameras under the state government's Safe Kerala Project.

The petition, filed by SRIT India Ltd., concerns payments due for work carried out as part of the 'Automated Traffic Enforcement' project.

When the matter came up before Justice Ziyad Rahman A A on Monday, senior counsel appearing for SRIT India Ltd. submitted that the amounts due had not been disbursed despite the court's earlier directions.

The High Court had previously directed the State government and the Motor Vehicles Department (MVD) to release the amounts due to Keltron for the installation and maintenance of the AI traffic cameras. Keltron was, in turn, directed to release the amounts due to SRIT India Ltd.

When the case was taken up on Wednesday, the state informed the court that it had filed an application seeking a direction to the petitioner to implead the Road Safety Commissioner of the Kerala Road Safety Authority as a party to the case, stating that the payment had to be made through the Commissioner.

Questioning the request, Justice Rahman orally observed, "It is their choice. How can you insist that? I'll suo motu implead."

After perusing the affidavit filed by the state, the court noted that there was an internal arrangement between the state government, the MVD and the Road Safety Commissioner under which payments for the project were to be made through the Commissioner. The court also noted that the Road Safety Commissioner was not a party to any of the contracts related to the project.

The petitioner's senior counsel pointed out that the State's affidavit did not dispute the amounts payable and requested the court to clarify that its earlier directions regarding payment would also apply to the Road Safety Commissioner.

The court also observed that the state's application itself need not have been entertained. "It is for the petitioner to decide who are to be impleaded as parties in the dispute. If at all the respondents have a case that proper parties are not impleaded, it is for the respondents to raise the contention of non-joinder of necessary parties and not to file an application of this nature," the court observed.

The court further noted that the Road Safety Commissioner was not a party to the contract that is the subject matter of the writ petition and that the petitioner had no obligation to implead the Road Safety Authority in the proceedings.

The case has been posted for further consideration next week.
(With LiveLaw inputs)