- (1.) The petitioner in the present case has filed the present petition impugning the communication dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P-6) received by it from the bank informing the petitioner that the bank guarantees furnished by it to the State had been invoked vide communication dated 27.8.2010.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted a tender, which was accepted by the respondent-State vide memo No. 17071 dated 27.11.2007 and the petitioner was directed to furnish performance security to the tune of Rs. 28,91,260/-. With reference to the same contract, the petitioner furnished bank guaratnee bearing No. 143/07 dated 11.12.2007 to the Superintending Engineer, Chandigarh Circle, Haryana PWD (B&R), Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 28,91,260/-. The aforesaid contract was duly completed on 20.7.2009. Even completion certificate was also issued to the petitioner. In the same contract, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 32,36,086/- as security, out of which 50% was refunded on completion of the contract and a sum of Rs. 16,18,043/- was retained by the department. The submission is that once the contract for which the petitioner had submitted the bank guaratnee was satisfactorily completed, the same deserved to be released. It could not be invoked to recover any alleged dues pertaining to other contract entered into between the parties. The petitioner had been carrying on many projects with the State, for which independent securities/guarantees had been furnished. Each transaction had to be dealt with independently. He further submitted that the bank guarantee was furnished to the Superintending Engineer, however, the same has been invoked by the Executive Engineer, which was totally without jurisdiction, as he had no authority to invoke the same. He further submitted that the affidavit was taken by the respondents from the petitioner under duress for linking the bank guarantee with other tenders, hence, the same cannot be made the basis to permit the respondents to invoke the bank guarantee furnished in different contracts.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no doubt the contract in question was completed by the petitioner on 20.7.2009, however, the road was to be maintained thereafter by the petitioner for a period of five years, which expired on 19.7.2014. The petitioner having not carried out the work of maintenance of road, the department had to get the same executed from other contractors. On that account, a sum of Rs. 38,95,000/- has to be recovered from the petitioner. He further submitted that the security deposited by the petitioner in other contracts, where also certain amounts were found to be due, were released after the petitioner furnished the affidavit stating that the bank guarantee already furnished be treated as good for other contracts as well. At this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold and claim that the affidavit was taken under duress, once it had taken the benefit thereof.;