K MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a PWD contractor. He was the successful bidder in a tender process for the execution of a road work. The work is one which is being executed by the State Government with the funds provided by the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India. Ext.P2 is the award of the work in favour of the petitioner. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner was directed to furnish performance security to the tune of Rs. 50,30,000/- and additional performance security to the tune of Rs. 1,31,00,000/-. The petitioner furnished the performance security and the additional performance security directed to be furnished as per Ext.P2 award. The case of the petitioner is that performance security and additional performance security are demanded in terms of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB) which is part of the Standard Bidding Document prescribed by the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India; that bids below the Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) are treated as unbalanced bids in terms of ITB; that additional performance security is to be furnished in terms of the ITB in the case of unbalanced bids if the employer, after evaluation of the price analyses based on the materials available by the contractor, finds that the bid is seriously unbalanced and that price analyses in terms of ITB has not been undertaken by the employer before the petitioner was directed to furnish additional performance security. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Ext.P2 award to the extent it directs the petitioner to furnish additional performance security.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the respondents contending that the additional performance security has been demanded from the petitioner in accordance with the ITB.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.