Disposed

M/S. M.T. Construction Company v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC11 Oct 2023WA/1722/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court of Kerala examined the requirement of performance guarantee for a construction contract awarded to the appellant by the Kerala Water Authority. Considering a Government Order relaxing the requirement to 3%, the Court disposed of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is liable to deposit performance guarantee only at the rate of 3% pursuant to the Government Order dated 7.09.2023.

M/S. M.T. Construction Company Vs Kerala Water… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 19TH ASWINA,

¶7

1945

¶8

WA NO. 1722 OF 2023

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 17405/2023 OF HIGH COURT

¶10

OF KERALA

¶11

APPELLANT/S:

¶12

M/S. M.T. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BUILDING NO.92, BEVINJA, THEKKIL FERRY, CHENGALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671541, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.T. MUHAMMED KUNHI HAJI, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN HAJI, AGED 66 YEARS, ARAFATH MANZIL, BEVINJA, THEKKIL FERRY, CHENGALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541 BY ADVS. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA ARCHANA K.S. MOHAMMED SHAFI.K

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JALA BHAVAN, NANDAVANAM, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695033 2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH CIRCLE, KANNUR., PIN - 670012 BY ADV P.M.JOHNY

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SC FOR KWA ADV. GEORGIE JOHNNY

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶18

11.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1722 of 2023

-2-

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2023

¶24

V.G.Arun, J.

¶25

The appellant, a construction company, was awarded a work contract by the Kerala Water Authority and issued with Ext.P2 letter of acceptance. Aggrieved by the condition in Ext.P2, requiring the appellant to deposit Performance Guarantee of 5% of the contract value, the writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶26

“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to permit the petitioner to execute the agreement, in pursuance to Ext.P2 letter of acceptance, by furnishing performance guarantee equal to 3% of the value of the work, forthwith;

¶27

ii. issue a writ of certiorari or any

¶28

W.A.No.1722 of 2023

¶29

-3-

¶30

other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the direction in Ext.P2 letter of acceptance, to furnish performance guarantee equal to 5% of the accepted PAC;

¶31

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P9 representation, in the light of Ext.P7 order, forthwith;”

¶32

The learned Single Judge having refused to grant the relief, this writ appeal is filed.

¶33

When the appeal was taken up for

¶34

consideration, learned Counsel drew attention to Annexure A2 Government Order (G.O.(P)

¶35

No.95/2023/FIN dated 7.09.2023) by which the Government has extended the relaxation in performance guarantee, ie, reduction of the requirement of Performance Guarantee from 5% to 3% of the contract value, with effect from 01.04.2023 up to 31.03.2024.

¶36

W.A.No.1722 of 2023

¶37

In view of the above Government order, the appellant is liable to deposit performance guarantee only at the rate of 3%.

¶38

The writ appeal is disposed of with the above

¶39

observation.

¶40

Sd/A.J.Desai Chief Justice sd/V.G.Arun Judge

¶41

scl

M/S. M.T. Construction Company v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. M.T. Construction Company v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maitheen M.Pareeth Vs State of Kerala

Perumkadavila Grama Panchayath Vs the Secretary, Marayamuttom Service Co-Op Society Ltd.No.

Pradeep Pu Vs State of Kerala

Prime Shipping and Logistics Vs Big Movers

Sony Mathai Vs Kerala Lok Ayuktha

Vijayaendran Vs the Superintent of Post Offices