IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA,
1945
WA NO. 1878 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 5014/2023 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
BIJU.K.THOMAS,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS KATTAKKAYAM HOUSE, EAST KADATHY,
MARKET PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 686673
BY ADV R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE WATER AUTHORITY,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PIN - 695010
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (KWA), PUBLIC HEALTH
CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE WATER AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686663
BY ADVS.
STANDING COUNSEL (B/O)
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KWA P.M.JOHNY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1878 of 2023
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of November, 2023 V.G.Arun, J.
The appellant entered into a contract with the first respondent Water Authority for execution of a civil work. In the letter of acceptance issued thereafter, the appellant was called upon to deposit additional performance guarantee of Rs.22,88,486/-. The writ petition was thereupon filed for a direction to allow the appellant to execute the agreement without insisting on furnishing additional performance guarantee. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the question is covered in the appellant's favour as per the judgment in Writ Appeal No.725 of 2023 and connected cases. W.A.No.1878 of 2023 -3-
3. We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent also.
In our opinion, the facts of the present appeal is slightly different from the facts of the judgment relied on since, herein, the appellant furnished the additional performance guarantee, subsequent to the impugned judgment. Therefore, the appellant's remedy is to seek refund of the amount based on the directions in the judgment in Writ Appeal No.725 of 2023 and connected cases, wherein this Court has observed that if the quoted amount is less than 10%, the contractor will be liable to furnish additional performance guarantee calculated at the rate; x- 10%. Insofar as the appellant admits that he had quoted at 18% below the Tendered Probable Amount of Contract, he can make a request for refund of portion of the amount. If such a request is made, the respondents shall take appropriate decision within one month of submission of the W.A.No.1878 of 2023 -4- request in accordance with the direction in Writ Appeal No.725 of 2023 and connected cases The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
A.J.Desai Chief Justice sd/-
V.G.Arun Judge Scl/