IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 1969 of 2009(H) --------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- C.M. ABDUL KHADER,P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, C.M. HOUSE, CHERKALA, CHENGAZHA P.O., KASARGOD, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. (ROADS & BRIDGES), NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. (BUILDING & LOCAL WORKS) NORTH CIRCLE KOZHIKODE. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. BUILDING DIVISION, KASARGOD. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KASARGOD. BY SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1969 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he is a contractor by profession and was awarded the contract work of construction of Kadar Bridge across Kadar Stream and connecting road in Badiadka – Barla- Vidyagiri- Muniyur Road in Kasaragod. 2. It is stated that in terms of the tender conditions, the petitioner had to furnish performance guarantee and that at his request, an amount of Rs.8,91,600/- was adjusted towards performance guarantee and Rs.1,00,000/- towards security deposit, from the bills pending with the 4th respondent in connection with construction work of the Quarters and Office Building of the DySP, Kasaragod, already completed by the petitioner. 3. Now the petitioner contends that the work of construction of the Bridge referred to above has also been completed. Therefore, what he essentially seeks is a direction to the respondents to release the amount of performance guarantee and security deposit. It would appear from Exhibit P2 that the W.P.(C) No.1969 /2009 2 second respondent has recommended release of the performance guarantee. However that was declined by the 4th respondent as per Exhibit P3 on the ground that in relation to the construction work of office and staff quarters for the 5th respondent, there were certain irregularities and that an enquiry by Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau is pending. It is on that ground this writ petition has been filed praying direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents to disburse the performance guarantee and security deposit. 4. A statement has been filed by learned Government pleader. From the statement, it is evident that there was an enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau and that technical inspection was carried out, in which irregularities in relation to the construction work undertaken by the petitioner have been found out. Eight irregularities have been briefly indicated in the statement and the statement concludes by saying that the vigilance enquiry is almost concluded and that the enquiry report is under preparation. It is also stated that technical inspection team has recommended to recover the cost of replacement and to rectify certain defects in the work W.P.(C) No.1969 /2009 3 executed by the contractor. 5. Though, respondents do not dispute the fact that they have with them the amount of performance guarantee and security amount, what they say in the counter affidavit is that in view of the defective work executed by the petitioner, they have recommended to recover the cost of replacement and rectification of defect which is necessary. Thus, if replacement and rectification of defect is to be completed by the respondents, petitioner will necessarily be responsible to pay the cost incurred by the respondents. In such a case this Court will not be justified in directing the respondents to release the amount covered by the performance guarantee and security deposit. Therefore the respondents are directed to finalize the Vigilance enquiry and recover from the dues payable what is due according to them and release the amount admittedly due to the petitioner. This shall be done expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm