IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8480 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.RATNAMANI, W/O.CHANDRAMOHAN, 5/1326, VIJAYA MANDIR, KOTTARAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.IBRAHIMKUNJU, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, GEOLOGIST, KOZHIKODE. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.8480/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 20.2.2008. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 25.4.2008. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 15.2.2008. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 1067/09 DT 23.1.2009. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE PERIOD FROM 18/2/2009 TILL 17.2.2010. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 18.2.2009. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 6.3.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8480 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance is regarding Ext.P7, by which the 1st respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee as directed in Ext.P4 with validity period till the disposal of WP(C) No.17537/06. 2. Facts of the case are that by Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed that on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee as directed therein, Ext.P2 mentioned in the said judgment will be reconsidered. It was also directed that the bank guarantee should be kept alive till the disposal of the WP(C) No.17537/06. 3. Petitioner submits that in compliance with the said direction, she furnished Ext.P5 bank guarantee valid for a period of one year and expiring on 17/8/2010. On furnishing the same, it would appear that the respondents took the view that the bank guarantee furnished should be valid for the whole period as directed in Ext.P4 judgment. 4. Petitioner states that she thereupon filed Ext.P6 saying that the bank guarantee is issued for one year and she undertook WPC 8480/09 :2 : to revalidate the same and to keep it valid till the disposal of WP (C) No.17537/06. It is stated that the respondents did not agree to the suggestion and issued Ext.P7 referred to above. 5. It is true that in Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed that bank guarantee should be furnished and that the same should be kept alive till the disposal of WP(C) No.17537/06. Such direction was issued for the reason that the appropriation of the amount covered by the guarantee will depend upon the outcome of that writ petition. 6. However, in view of the fact that bank guarantee is always valid for a period, it is only appropriate that the bank guarantee offered is accepted by the respondent, but, however with an obligation on the petitioner to revalidate the same sufficiently in advance of its expiry. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall accept Ext.P5 bank guarantee. However, one month before its expiry, the petitioner should either revalidate Ext.P5 bank guarantee by another or furnish a fresh bank guarantee in lieu thereof. This process will continue until WP (C) No.17537/06 is disposed of. It is made clear that if the WPC 8480/09 :3 : petitioner fails to keep the bank guarantee alive as directed above, it will be open to the respondents to invoke the guarantee. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the respondents for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp