Biju.K.Thomas vs Kerala State Water Authority
2023 Latest Caselaw 11529 Ker

           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. 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

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/