- (1.) Heard Sri J.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Shivam Yadav for the respondents No. 2 and 3. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the Government Order dated 8.6.2012 as well as the consequential action as communicated by the impugned letter dated 7.9.2013 calling upon the contractors of the respondents authority, including the petitioners, to furnish additional performance guarantee/security in terms thereof.
(2.) The contention of Sri Pandey is that in the absence of any relevant authority under the financial handbook, the Government Order dated 8.6.2012 runs counter to Rule 3 of Vol. VI Chapter 1 of the Financial Handbook. The said Rule is quoted hereinunder: 3. The rules in this volume may be supplemented by orders and detailed instructions which may be issued by the administrative department of the Government in consultation, where necessary, with the Finance Department. The orders and instructions so issued should be considered as authoritative in so far as they may not be in conflict or inconsistent with the Rules in this volume.
(3.) Sri Pandey further submits that Rule 365 thereof clearly prescribes a deduction of 10 per cent from the payments as security for the due fulfillment of the contract and therefore the impugned Government Order being inconsistent as per Rule 3, deserves to be ignored.;