IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25129 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.N.OUSEPH, PROPRIETOR, RAJAM'S TECH, PRADEEP NIVAS, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SOUTHERN RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL REGIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIESEL LOCO SHED, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,S.C,S.RAILWAY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25129 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted tenders pursuant to notifications inviting tenders issued by the respondents, for the work of house keeping and loco cleaning of Diesel Loco Shed, Ernakulam for one year. Petitioner's tender was accepted and and he was directed to furnish performance guarantee. The petitioner's grievance is that although instead of bank guarantee the petitioner offered to give cash security, insisting on bank guarantee, the award of contract to the petitioner is sought to be cancelled. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records resulting in Exhibit P1 Order, scrutinize and quash the condition therein that Performance Guarantee must be given in the form of irrevocable bank guarantee and permit the petitioner to furnish the same in any of the modes specified in Exhibit P2 policy Letter; ii. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records resulting in Exhibit P5 Order, scrutinize and quash the same and permit the petitioner to continue the work awarded to him as per Exhibit P1 Order.” 2. Learned standing counsel would submit that the petitioner did not furnish the guarantee within the time stipulated and that is why the award was cancelled. He would further submit that the respondents have already issued a fresh tender notice. However, he admits that the contract has not been awarded yet. 3. I am of opinion that for this technical objection the petitioner should not be deprived of the award of contract already made. The petitioner is prepared to produce performance guarantee in the form of cash security for the amount in question and he is also prepared to pay the charges incurred by the respondent, for the fresh tender notification. Accordingly, if the petitioner furnishes cash security as W.P.C. No. 25129/2008. -: 2 :- performance guarantee and pays the charges for the tender notification within one week, the award of contract as evidenced by Ext. P1 shall be finalised in the name of the petitioner within one week from the date of intimation of the amounts of security and charges for the tender notification. The writ petition is disposed of above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.