1. The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P4 and P9 and for other consequential reliefs.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership, was awarded a contract by the respondents for "FD work-2018-19 Flood rectification works to Chiyyaram Convent Road from ch.2/150 to ch.3/000, providing BM & BC (Balance Works)" on issuing Letter of Acceptance dated 24.01.2022 for works valued Rs.79,95,465.20, sent by registered post on 28.01.2022, directing to furnish security deposit of Rs.3,99,800/- and additional performance guarantee for Rs.7,66,300/-, to execute an agreement for carrying out the works, within 14 days of registration of the same. The copy of the said letter of acceptance, dated 24.01.2022, and the postal cover are produced as Ext.P1. The specific case of the petitioner is that the period of 14 days stipulated is to be reckoned from 28.01.2022 since the postal application was registered on 28.01.2022, and the said time limit will expire only on 11.02.2022. But, the 3rd respondent has sent Ext.P2 letter dated 08.02.2022, intimating that the agreement could be executed within a period of 10 days up to 17.02.2022, with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and directing to furnish security deposit and other documents required. Petitioner would submit that the further period of 10 days to execute an agreement with a fine of Rs.25,000/- reckoned from 11.02.2022 expired only on 21.02.2022 and therefore, the direction in Ext.P2 to execute the agreement before 17.02.2022 is unauthorised, arbitrary and illegal. Ext.P3 stamp papers were purchased by the petitioner on 14.02.2022 and on 17.02.2022, petitioner remitted fine of Rs.25,000/- as evident from Ext.P3(a) and further that as per Ext.P3(b) petitioner deposited Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,83,500/- at the District Treasury, Kasaragod towards 50% of the security deposit and additional performance guarantee. It is submitted that on 17.02.2022 petitioner had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,83,200/- at the South Indian Bank, duly pledged to the 3rd respondent towards 50% of security deposit and additional performance guarantee as evident from Ext.P3(c). on 17.02.2022 insurance policy for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was taken from United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kasaragod as evident from Ex.P3(d). The contention of the petitioner is that they are entitled to execute an agreement till 21.02.2022. But, on 18.02.2022, Ext.P4 order was issued illegally, terminating the contract at the risk and costs of the petitioner. On 21.02.2022, the 3rd respondent sent Ext.P5 communication illegally denying the legitimate right of the petitioner to execute an agreement for carrying out the works specified in Ext.P1 within the period available up to 21.02.2022, relying on the e-mail dated 25.01.2022, pretending unawareness of the clear intimation in Ext.P1 that agreement is to be executed within 14 days of registration of the same on 28.01.2022. On 23.2.2022, the petitioner sent Ext.P6 letter to the 3rd respondent requesting the release of Ext.P3 series of fixed deposits pledged. On 24.02.2022, the petitioner sent Ext.P8 letter to the 2nd respondent requesting to revoke the unauthorised and illegal termination of the contract and to waive the risk and cost unlawfully imposed. Thereafter, Ext.P9 letter was issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner, illegally demanding payment of Rs.25,87,506/- allegedly towards 30% of the value of work of Rs.79,95,465.20 based on Ext.P4. Petitioner submits that the said demand is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and invalid. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. A detailed statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein the stand taken is that the petitioner’s quotation was accepted and the petitioner was informed, as per e-mail on 25.01.2022, of the selection. The letter was also communicated by registered post on 28.01.2022. It is further submitted that intimation of letter of acceptance (selection notice) is permissible by e-mail as per Clause 2009.6 of Kerala PWD Manual in urgent situations and it is clearly specified in Clause 2009.6 of PWD Manual that the date of registration shall be the date of acceptance of tender irrespective of the date when the communication is actually delivered to the bidder and the selection notice specifies to execute the agreement without fine within 14 days of registration of the communication of letter of acceptance and it could be reckoned from the date of communication of the selection notice by e-mail i.e, from 25.01.2022. The petitioner did not turn up to execute the agreement within the stipulated time, i.e, up to 07.02.2022 and another communication was sent to him to execute the agreement with a fine within a further period of 10 days, i.e, up to 17.02.2022, as per Ext. P2. Since the extended time for execution of the agreement by payment of fine expires on 17.02.2022, and the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent's office with the documents for executing the agreement only on 18.02.2022, which is beyond the period stipulated as per Kerala PWD Manual, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Since, as per the PWD Manual, the department is entitled to send notice of acceptance of tender by way of an e-mail, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the communication through registered post is not sustainable.

4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

5. Petitioner would contend that the period of 14 days stipulated for executing an agreement as per the PWD Manual shall be reckoned from the date of registration of such registered notice, which is on 28.01.2022. Based on the same, the petitioner contends that the date of signing the agreement expired on 11.02.2022, and the petitioner is entitled to a further period of 10 days for executing the agreement with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. The further period of 10 days, when reckoned from 11.02.2022, will expire only on 21.02.2022, and the petitioner has produced all documents and the agreement on 17.02.2022, much before the said date. Whereas the contention raised by the department is that they have sent an e-mail to the petitioner intimating the acceptance of tender on 24.01.2022 and calculating the 14 days for executing the agreement and adding the extension of time provided as per the PWD Manual, the agreement ought to have been executed with fine on or before 17.02.2022. This period is calculated by the department, taking into consideration the date on which the e-mail was sent, i.e., on 25.01.2022.

6. Clause 2009.6 of the PWD manual dealing with selection notice mandates that the date of registration shall be the date of acceptance of tender, irrespective of the date when the communication is actually delivered to the bidder. Petitioner claims that the date of registration is the date of registration of the registered notice, i.e., 28.01.2022, as evident from Ext.P1. But, the said clause further provides that in urgent cases, the acceptance of tender can also be communicated by telegram and/or SMS to be followed by the selection notice in a proper form and in such cases, the date of filing of the telegram/sending the SMS shall be the date of acceptance of tender. It is further provided in the PWD Manual that the notice could be sent through registered post/courier service/e-mail. Clause 2009.6 of the PWD Manual reads as follows:

                  “2009.6. Selection Notice.-After it is decided to accept a tender, selection notice in the form of letter of acceptance as per bidding documents shall be issued to the bidder by the tendering authority within seven days or before the expiry of firm period whichever is earlier. The officer who is competent to enter into the contract shall send this notice through registered post/courier service/e-mail. The date of registration shall be the date of acceptance of the tender irrespective of the date when the communication is actually delivered to the bidder. In urgent cases, acceptance of a tender can also be communicated by telegram/ and or SMS to be followed by selection notice in proper form. In such cases, the date of filing of the telegram/sending the SMS shall be the date of acceptance of the tender. Copy of the notice shall also be sent to the subordinate officer under the control of the work. In the selection notice the selected contractor will be notified to execute an agreement within a maximum period of fourteen days from the date of acceptance of the tender. Fine at the rate of 1% of contract amount subject to a minimum amount of Rs. 1000 and a maximum amount of Rs. 25,00015* shall be levied if agreement is not executed within ten days after the notified period of fourteen days.

                  The successful bidder shall execute the agreement within 14 days or with fine within next 10 days from the date of selection notice. In case of failure to execute the agreement within this period, tendering authority shall cancel the offer of contract forfeiting the EMD and taking such other actions as mentioned in the bidding document. After cancelling, the offer of contract in the above case, the tendering authority may negotiate with the next lowest bidder and award the work to him if he expresses his willingness in writing to execute the work at the accepted rate of the default bidder. Otherwise the work will be re-tendered.”

7. Since the notice of acceptance of tender could also be sent through e-mail and the department has taken a stand that the e-mail has been sent on 25.01.2022, this Court has to consider whether the petitioner has taken steps to execute the agreement and other formalities within the time granted as per Clause 2009.6 taking the date of registration as 25.01.2022, the date on which the e-mail was sent. Going by the said Clause in the PWD Manual, the successful bidder shall execute an agreement within 14 days, i.e., 14 days from 25.01.2022 and with fine within the next 10 days from the date of the selection notice. On the basis of the same, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the said period expired on 17.02.2022, and the petitioner has approached the 3rd respondent's office with the documents for executing the agreement only on 18.02.2022. The question to be considered is whether the date of issuance of e-mail on 25.01.2022 should be excluded for calculating the said period of 14 days and the further period of 10 days, during which the agreement could be executed on payment of fine. It is to be noted that the PWD Manual is the basic document that outlines the functioning of the Public Works Department, including the procedure for tender. The original manual, prepared in 1972, has been revised as per G.O(P) No. 13/2012/PWD dated 1/2/2012. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 deals with the commencement and termination of time, which provides that in any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word “from”, and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word “to”. Going by Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when the provision uses the word “from”, as provided in the PWD Manual, for calculating the period stipulated therein, the first day in the series of the days shall be excluded. As per the PWD Manual, the agreement is to be executed within a maximum period of 14 days from the date of acceptance of the tender. Therefore, the date 25.1.2022, the date on which the email was sent, has to be excluded as provided in the General Clauses Act, 1987

8. The Apex Court in M/s.Saketh India Ltd. & others v. M/s.India Securities Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 1, while dealing with the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, held that for computing the period of one month for filing a complaint, the first day of the cause of action has to be excluded. The High Court of Allahabad in Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Permanent Lok Adalat and another, 2024 (4) ADJ 393, while interpreting an insurance policy, has also held that the first day in the series of days has to be excluded as provided under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 8 of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, also provides for an identical provision. Section 8 reads as follows

                  “8 - Commencement and termination of time.-In any Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "from", and for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time to use the word "to"”

                  In the light of the above-said provisions and judgments cited supra, I am of the view that even if the date of sending of the e-mail i.e., 25.01.2022 is to be considered as the starting point of the period of limitation, the date 25.01.2022 shall be excluded for computing the period as provided under the PWD Manual. If so, the petitioner could have executed the agreement with relevant documents till 18.02.2022 and not on 17.02.2022 as contended by the respondents. It is an admitted case even in the counter affidavit filed, and as per the averment in the writ petition, the petitioner has approached the 3rd respondent’s office with the documents for executing the agreement on 18.02.2022. Therefore, I am convinced that the petitioner has approached the authorities for executing the agreement within the time as prescribed under Clause 2009.6 of the PWD Manual and the reasons stated for cancelling the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner are liable to be interfered with and the imposition of Rs.25,87,506/- as loss caused to the department as per Ext.P9 is also liable to be interfered. Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P9 are set aside.

                  The writ petition is allowed as above.