CHARLES TOM PARECATTIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be a Contractor engaged in execution of various works awarded by the respondent Government. He participated in response to Ext.P1 tender and quoted an amount of Rs.34,04,146.00 as against the estimated cost of work in excess of Rs.74.00 Lakhs. As seen from Ext.P2, the tender placed by the petitioner was accepted. The petitioner states that, by Ext.P3 order issued by the Government dtd. 28/9/2015, 'additional performance guarantee' was being demanded. The petitioner was before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.5382 of 2023 seeking to challenge the demand of the additional performance guarantee. As per Ext.P5 interim order dtd. 17/2/2023, it is true, this Court directed the execution of the agreement on the petitioner providing the guarantee in the form of a 'simple bond'. The writ petition referred to above has since been finally disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment dtd. 21/3/2023, finding, among other things, that if the work is already completed, no additional performance guarantee need to be executed.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition contending that he has already completed the entire work and hence seeking to challenge Ext.P10, to the extent of proposal to terminate the work, if the additional performance guarantee is not executed within the period prescribed thereunder.

(3.) I have heard Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned senior Government Pleader.