Ajeendran A vs The Superintending Engineer
2022 Latest Caselaw 11653 Ker

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
     TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                             WP(C) NO. 39115 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              AJEENDRAN A
              AGED 58 YEARS
              S/O KRISHNAN,AGED 58 YEARS,CIVIL GOVERNMENT
              CONTRACTOR,SREESHYLAM,NIRMALAGIRI P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT,
              PIN 670643

              BY ADV P.P.RAMACHANDRAN


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
              ROADS (NORTH) CIRCLE,PWD COMPLEX,MANANCHIRA,
              KOZHIKODE,PIN 673001
     2        THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
              PWD, ROADS DIVISION,KOZHIKODE 673018
     3        THE STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695001

              BY ADV. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER



     THIS     WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)NO.39115 OF 2022
                                      2




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of December, 2022

The petitioner was awarded the contract for

two civil works. As insisted by respondents 1 and 2,

the petitioner furnished performance guarantee

and additional performance guarantee while

executing the agreements. Later, the petitioner

came to understand that there was no requirement

of furnishing additional performance guarantee in

view of the relaxation granted by Exts.P2 and P3

Government Orders. The petitioner therefore

sought refund of the amount deposited towards

additional performance guarantee. Respondents 1

and 2 having failed to act upon the request, this

writ petition is filed.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended

that in the light of Exts.P2 and P3, collection of

additional performance guarantee is illegal and

respondents 1 and 2 are bound to refund the

amount immediately.

W.P.(C)NO.39115 OF 2022

3. Learned Government Pleader submitted that

the agreements were executed after Ext.P3 and

Ext.P3 does not provide for waiver in furnishing

additional performance guarantee.

4. Inasmuch as the petitioner has preferred a

representation highlighting his grievance, it is only

appropriate to consider the representation in the

light of the Government Orders.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of,

directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4

representation and take a decision thereon in terms

of Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/20-12 W.P.(C)NO.39115 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39115/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 18.04.2022 WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2022 WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.7/2021/FIN. DATED 07.01.2021 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.32/2022/FIN. DATED 15.03.2022 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2022

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE