IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 1549 of 2009 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17743/2009 Dated 14/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC ----------------------------------------- ALL KERALA ENGINEERS AND SKILLED WORKERS LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.4447, THEVALLY, KOLLAM-691 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT D.RAJKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SOUTH CIRCLE, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 1549 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner who lost the battle in the writ petition is the appellant before this Court. The issue pertains to the scope of Ext.P1 Government Order, wherein certain exemption has been provided with regard to the satisfaction of Fixed Deposit, Earnest Money Deposit, etc. in the tenders to be submitted by the societies like the petitioner herein. 2. The grievance of the appellant before this Court was against the demand for furnishing bank guarantee to an extent of 'ten percent' of the bid amount. After considering the facts and figures and also the relevant clause in Ext.P1 Government Order, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that the liability to furnish bank guarantee as above was something different from the stipulation regarding Security Deposit and the Earnest Money Deposit and hence no interference was warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, which is sought to be challenged before this Court in the writ appeal. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before the Court earlier on 28th August, 2009 the following interim order was passed: “The appellant submits that an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- is due to be paid by the Inland Navigation Directorate under the Water W.A.No.1549 of 2009 - 2 - Resources Department, Government of Kerala in respect of the work of dredging of Parvathy Puthra river from Kovalam to Arakulam. If that be so, it will be open to the respondents to withhold and retain the required amount of security deposited from out of the amounts payable to the appellant and referred to above. If no such amount is payable to the appellant, that fact shall be intimated to the appellant within three days and in which case the appellant shall execute a bank guarantee within another one week, subject to the result of the appeal. It is also made clear that in case there is no sufficient amount payable to the appellant, that factor also will be intimated to the appellant and the appellant will furnish bank guarantee for the required amount after adjusting the amount actually payable to the appellant.” 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter has already been brought to the consideration of the Government as to the interpretation and scope of Ext.P1 Government Order and that the appellant would be satisfied if appropriate directions are issued to the Government to consider the matter and pass final orders after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard in this regard. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the respondents have no objection whatsoever in this regard. 6. In the above circumstances, the appellant is permitted to make a detailed representation pointing out the facts and figures to the first respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on which event, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after W.A.No.1549 of 2009 - 3 - affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Final orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation as aforesaid. It is made clear that we have not considered the merits involved and it is left open to be considered and decided by the Government, untrammelled by the observations in the impugned judgment. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns