KENNY MANUEL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Contractor who had satisfactorily executed a work in connection with the construction of quarters at A.R. Camp, Kottayam. He has approached this Court challenging Ext. P5 and seeking a declaration that respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to withhold the retention amount and the security amount in respect of the work in question. By Ext. P5 the second respondent had directed the petitioner to extend the period of bank guarantee beyond 9.12.2001 threatening that failure shall result in invocation of the bank guarantee without any further notice.

(2.) Certain facts are necessary for the disposal of the case. Facts are as follows.

(3.) The petitioner and the first respondent entered into a contract for construction of quarters at AR Camp, Kottayam. The work has been satisfactorily completed. According to the petitioner, he had, as per Ext. P1 handed over the completed building and premises back to the officer concerned. Ext. P1 is not disputed by respondents 1 and 2. A final bill will be settled by the party who had awarded the work only if the construction had been satisfactorily completed. Ext. P2 is the letter from the first respondent, which reads as follows: