Time limits in contracts must exclude the first day when calculating execution periods, following relevant legislative guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

Viju Abraham, J.

The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P4 and P9 and for other consequential reliefs.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership, was awarded a contract by the respondents for "FD work-2018-19 Flood rectification works to Chiyyaram Convent Road from ch.2/150 to ch.3/000, providing BM & BC (Balance Works)" on issuing Letter of Acceptance dated 24.01.2022 for works valued Rs.79,95,465.20, sent by registered post on 28.01.2022, directing to furnish security deposit of Rs.3,99,800/- and additional performance guarantee for Rs.7,66,300/-, to execute an agreement for carrying out the works, within 14 days of registration of the same. The copy of the said letter of acceptance, dated 24.01.2022, and the postal cover are produced as Ext.P1. The specific case of the petitioner is that the period of 14 days stipulated is to be reckoned from 28.01.2022 since the postal application was registered on 28.01.2022, and the said time limit will expire only on 11.02.2022. But, the 3rd respondent has sent Ext.P2 letter dated 08.02.2022, intimating that the agreement could be executed within a period of 10 days up to 17.02.2022, with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and directing to furnish security deposit and other documents required. Petitioner would submit that the further period of 10 days to execute an agreement with a fine of Rs.25,000/- reckoned from 11.02.2022 expired only on 21.02.2022 and therefore, the direction in Ext.P2 to execute the agreement before 17.02.2022 is unauthorised, arbitrary and illegal. Ext.P3 stamp papers were purchased by the petitioner on 14.02.2022 and on 17.02.2022, petitioner remitted fine of Rs.25,000/- as evident from Ext.P3(a) and further that as per Ext.P3(b) petitioner deposited Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,83,500/- at the District Treasury, Kasaragod towards 50% of the security deposit and additional performance guarantee. It is submitted that on 17.02.2022 petitioner had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,83,200/- at the South Indian Bank, duly pledged to the 3rd respondent towards 50% of security deposit and additional performance guarantee as evident from Ext.P3(c). on 17.02.2022 insurance policy for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was taken from United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kasaragod as evident from Ex.P3(d). The contention of the petitioner is that they are entitled to execute an agreement till 21.02.2022. But, on 18.02.2022, Ext.P4 order was issued illegally, terminating the contract at the risk and costs of the petitioner. On 21.02.2022, the 3rd respondent sent Ext.P5 communication illegally denying the legitimate right of the petitioner to execute an agreement for carrying out the works specified in Ext.P1 within the period available up to 21.02.2022, relying on the e-mail dated 25.01.2022, pretending unawareness of the clear intimation in Ext.P1 that agreement is to be executed within 14 days of registration of the same on 28.01.2022. On 23.2.2022, the petitioner sent Ext.P6 letter to the 3rd respondent requesting the release of Ext.P3 series of fixed deposits pledged. On 24.02.2022, the petitioner sent Ext.P8 letter to the 2ndrespondent requesting to revoke the unauthorised and illegal termination of the contract and to waive the risk and cost unlawfully imposed. Thereafter, Ext.P9 letter was issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner, illegally demanding payment of Rs.25,87,506/- allegedly towards 30% of the value of work of Rs.79,95,465.20 based on Ext.P4. Petitioner submits that the said demand is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and invalid. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. A detailed statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein the stand taken is that the petitioner’s quotation was accepted and the petitioner was informed, as per e-mai