Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, assailed the order dt. 16th March, 2010 [Ann.7] whereby the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, sent a letter to the Chief Branch Manager, Bank of India invoking the bank guarantee as per the terms & conditions of contract executed between the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner executed a work contract in the extended period of rehabilitation of earthen dam of Morel Irrigation Project, Dausa. However, after completion of work order, as alleged, security deposited was refunded to the petitioner, which is evident from Ann.5 and Certificate [Ann.6] has also been issued to him. To this effect work was completed in extended period granted upto 1st February, 2009. Counsel for petitioner submits that before respondents took decision for invoking the bank guarantee vide communication dt. 16th March, 2010, no opportunity of hearing was afforded and he is completely unaware of as to what is the reason for invoking the bank guarantee which he has furnished in regard to Work Order No. 53/2006 -07.
(3.) IN opinion of this Court, submission made by Counsel is without merit for the reason that bank guarantee can be invoked by the party to the contract as per terms & conditions of contract executed. The terms of contract which was executed between the parties, is not on record and merely because security amount was refunded to the petitioner in no manner can preclude the authorities from invoking bank guarantee, if there is any violation of terms & conditions of the contract executed and once the respondents took decision to invoke bank guarantee who is a party to the contract, it will not be open for this Court to interfere under writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;