STATE OF KERALA Vs. JOSEPH VELUPUZHAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in W.P.(C) No.22502/2017 are in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The respondent herein, a Contractor, was awarded the Budget Work 2016-2017 improvements including BMBC to Pathipalam Cheruvancheri road from chainage 0/000 to 4/690 in Koothuparamba LAC in Kannur District. Ext.P1 is the letter issued by the Superintending Engineer awarding the work. In the tender notice, towards Performance Guarantee, it was specified that the amount collected at the time of executing the contract agreement will be 5% of the contract value and that the deposit will be retained till the expiry of defect liability period. It was also specified that at least 50% of the deposit shall be collected in the form of Treasury Fixed Deposit and the rest in the form of Bank Guarantee or any other form prescribed in the revised PWD Manual. In terms of this prescription in the tender notification, appropriate instruction was issued to the respondent in Ext.P1. It was thereupon that he filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants to accept Exts.P3 and P4 Bank Guarantees in lieu of the Treasury Fixed Deposit and permitting to execute the agreement and the work. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to accept the Bank Guarantee in lieu of Treasury Fixed Deposit and allow the respondent to execute the contract and the work. It is this judgment that is challenged.

(2.) We heard the Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) Although the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has raised several contentions to justify the judgment of the learned Single Judge, having regard to the specific condition in the tender notice; requiring the tenderer to furnish 50% of the Performance Guarantee by Treasury Fixed Deposit, we are of the view that the tenderer was obliged to comply with that condition. The tenderer having accepted the conditions of tender and quoted for the same, could not have, in any manner, wriggled out of those conditions nor could have he filed the writ petition for the aforesaid relief. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the respondent to submit Bank Guarantee instead of Treasury Fixed Deposit. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal.