The court emphasized strict interpretation of exemption conditions, confirming that exemptions apply only to tenders prior to stipulated deadlines.

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

a) Issue a writ of mandamus any other appropriate writ order or directions directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to execute the agreement with respect of the work namely KIIFB-2016-2017 -Improvement works to Mannarkkad-Chinnathadakam Road (Ch 19/000 to 52/362) - General Civil Work with performance guarantee at the rate of 3 % instead of 5%, forthwith;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that in view Exhibit P-3 to P-5 G.Os notice inviting tender, the performance guarantee to be submitted in respect of the work KIIFB-2016-2017-Improvement works to Mannarkkad-Chinnathadakam Road (Ch 19/000 to 52/362) - General Civil Work is at the rate of 3%.

And c) Grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner is an A Class contractor, who participated in the tender notified as per Ext.P1 for the work, namely, “KIIFB-2016-2017-Improvement works to Mannarkkad Chinnathadakam Road (Ch19/000 to 52/362) - General Civil Work”. The petitioner was the successful bidder and Ext.P2 is the letter of acceptance dated 29.01.2026. As part of the tender conditions specified in Ext.P1, the petitioner will have to furnish a performance guarantee towards 5% of the PAC. According to the petitioner, the insistence of 5% of PAC as performance guarantee, is not at all legally sustainable, in view of the fact that, the same has been reduced by various Government orders, as evidenced by Exts.P3 to P5. It is also the case of the petitioner that, it is specifically stated in Ext.P1 notification that, all government orders relating to tenders are applicable to this tender as well. This writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs, is filed in such circumstances.

3. I have heard Sri. M.Promodh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned standing Counsel for the respondents.

4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether, Exts.P3 to P5 Government orders can be made applicable to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the attention of this Court, various interim orders passed by this Court as Exts.P9, P10 and also Ext.P8 judgment, where directions were issued by this Court, permitting the petitioners therein to execute the contract, by furnishing performance guarantee for 3%. It was pointed out that, the same was ordered by placing reliance upon Ext.P3 to P5 Government Orders.

5. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, the relaxation of performance guarantee of 5% to 3% was granted by the Government, as per the Government Orders referred to above, taking note of the difficulties that were being faced by the contractors, owing to Covid-19 pandemic and its consequences. Initially, Ext.P3 government order was issued, granting the same, later the same was extended as per Ext.P4 by making the said government order applicable to all new tenders as well as the work which have been tendered and awarded, but agreements have not been signed by the successful bidder. Initially, the period of such exemption was upto 31.03.2023 and later as per Ext.P5, the same was extended upto 31.03.2024. Thus, it is evident from Ext.P5 that, as far the exemption contemplated is concerned, the same was only upto the period till 31.03.2024.

6. In this case, the specific case of the petitioner is that, administrative sanction for the above work was granted before 31.03.2024 and hence, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit thereof. However, it is to be noted in this regard that, in Ext