1 R.P.No.358 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.35319 of 2019 2025:KER:28076 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 358 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.35319 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 SUPERINTING ENGINEER PWD BUILDINGS CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 BY ADV. SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SR.GP. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC: P.N.RAVINDRANATH GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, KAILAS BHAVAN, THENGODE P.O, KAKKANADU, PIN - 682030 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 R.P.No.358 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.35319 of 2019 2025:KER:28076 ORDER The respondents in the writ petition have presented the captioned review petition, placing reliance on certain clauses contained in Ext.R2(g) as well as Ext.P10, as per which, the writ petitioner has agreed for a forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.2 lakhs, in circumstances when he fail to take up the contract, when he is called upon to do so. 2. Heard Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the review petitioners as well as Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan, the learned counsel for the respondent herein. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Gorden, emphatically places reliance on Ext.R2(g) to contend that, in view of the admitted factual position, the petitioner is not entitled for the refund of the security deposit. On a prima facie consideration, the afore submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader is attractive. 4. However, in the judgment dated 10.01.2025, this Court has specifically taken note of the extraordinary circumstances pointed out by the petitioner, leading to the situation where he could not execute the agreement. It is taking note of the afore 3 R.P.No.358 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.35319 of 2019 2025:KER:28076 extraordinary circumstances, this Court, in paragraph 11, has categorically found that it is not for the respondents to take advantage of the said situation. Thereafter, this Court had made further discussions with respect to the loss, if any, suffered by the respondents in the writ petition and found that insofar as the tender has been subsequently executed in favour of a third party and since there has been no loss suffered to the respondents, the prayers in the writ petition can be accepted. 5. The attempt made by the learned Senior Government Pleader through this review petition is a rehearing with respect to the contents of Ext.R2(g). This Court further notices that, in paragraph 10 of the judgment, the contention raised by Sri.Gorden, with reference to Ext.R2(g), has been noticed also. In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with this review petition, and hence, this review petition would stand rejected. Sd/- HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE anm