Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
ABDUL RAHMAN T.A. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge performance guarantee requirement. (Para 1) |
| 2. court notices compliance with interim orders. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. writ petitions disposed of in favor of established directives. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have approached this Court, pointing out that they are contractors having A class contractor’s licence, registered with the Public Works Department, and seeking to challenge the steps taken by the respondents in insisting for execution of the agreement with 5% performance guarantee, pointing out that the requirement cannot exceed 3%.
2. Heard Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.17733 of 2023, Sri.V.Philip Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14426 of 2023, Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned counsel for the Kerala Road Fund Board, as well as Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. This Court notices that, on the basis of the interim orders issued, the respective petitioners were permitted to execute the agreement with 3% performance guarantee. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17733 of 2023 is stated to have completed the work, and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14426 of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
