IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 37460 of 2004(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.N.ANANDESWARAN PILLAI, ASHA BHAVAN, THONALLOOR, PANDALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.KURUP SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.K.G.ABRAHAM SRI.LAVARAJ M.G. SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR (SE), OFFICER OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY (ADB) CIRCLE, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN - 24. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (R.R), ADOOR. 5. A.ASHOK, ASHA BHAVAN, THONALLOOR, PANDALAM. RI BY ADV. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN, CGC R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV.SRI.NOBLE MATHEW ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 37460 of 2004(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.11.99. EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS LISTED ALONG WITH THE TENDER DT.NIL. EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE SOLVENCY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, ADOOR DATED 24.03.99. EXT.P4 - COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04.01.2000. EXT.P5 - COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DT.07.02.2000. EXT.P6 - COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 15983/00 IN O.P.9493/00. EXT.P7 - COPY OF THE ORDER OF ACCEPTANCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.NIL. EXT.P8 - COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 31.05.2000. EXT.P9 - COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.9493/00 DATED 19.07.2000. EXT.P10 - COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.01. EXT.P11 - COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT U/S 34 OF THE R.R ACT DT.27.9.04. EXT.P11 (a) - COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT U/S 7 OF THE R.R.ACT DATED 03.09.04. EXT.P12 - COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.09.04. EXT.P13 - COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.09.04. EXT.P14 - COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.04. WP(C).No. 37460 of 2004(H) EXT.P15 - COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.04 EXT.P16 - COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT.09.01.04. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R 4 (a) - COPY OF ABSTRACT OF LIABILITY AS ON 30.04.04. EXT.R 4 (b) - COPY OF EXTRACT OF FORM 24. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No.37460 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the father of the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent participated in the tender proceedings for collection of toll from the vehicles passing through the bridges at Panangad and Aroor along the Cochin by-pass. As per Ext.P1 notification inviting tenders for participating in the tenders, the tenderer was supposed to furnish a valid solvency certificate for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. The 5th respondent participated in the tender on the strength of a solvency certificate issued by the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs. The tender was awarded in favour of the 5th respondent. Ext.P8 agreement was also executed. Subsequently, he committed breach of contract. Therefore, respondents 1 to 4 initiated proceedings for recovery of the loss caused to the Government on account of the breach of contract. The petitioner has been proceeded against for recovery of the same on the strength of the solvency certificate issued by the petitioner. That is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner raises two contentions. The first is that the solvency certificate was issued by the petitioner only for enabling the 5th respondent to participate in the tender and once the tender proceedings are over, the petitioner ceases to be liable further on the basis of the solvency certificate. He relies on the conditions stipulated in Ext.P2 in support of his contentions. The second contention is that if at all, he is liable -: 2 :- only for Rs. 5 lakhs, insofar as Ext.P1 tender notice contemplates only a solvency certificate for Rs. 5 lakhs for participating in the tender. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent taking the stand that the petitioner is liable for the whole amount. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The 5th respondent had approached this Court challenging the recovery proceedings by filing O.P.Nos. 36455/2001 23230/2002 as also W.A.No. 2941/2002. Conditional orders were granted. The 5th respondent complied with some of the orders. Subsequently, he defaulted payment. The writ petitions have been dismissed also. I am not inclined to countenance the contention of the petitioner that once tender proceedings are over, the petitioner ceases to be liable on the basis of the solvency certificate. The purpose of the solvency certificate is not merely to enable the 5th respondent to participate in the tender. It is for the purpose of satisfying the 2nd respondent that the 5th respondent has sufficient means to see that amounts due from him are paid. In fact, the solvency certificate is in the nature of a guarantee furnished by the petitioner for due performance of the contract by the 5th respondent. Otherwise, there is no meaning in the requirement of furnishing solvency. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner is liable on the basis of the solvency certificate issued by him. -: 3 :- 5. However, nobody has controverted the contention of the petitioner that he is liable only up to Rs. 5 lakhs since in Ext.P1, solvency certificate is required only for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to accept that contention of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to recover from the petitioner only an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs with interest thereon out of the amounts due from the 5th respondent. However, this will not stand in the way of respondents 1 to 4 proceeding against the 5th respondent for recovery of the balance amounts due, if necessary, by arrest and detention as provided under Section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/