JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the Government is insisting for a Performance Guarantee to be furnished; as 50% Treasury Deposit and 50% Bank Guarantee. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is an approved contractor and is carrying on many works and there is always delay in payment of bills of the completed works. In such circumstance, due to paucity of funds, the petitioner is ready to furnish two Bank Guarantees as is seen from Exts.P3 and P4, which can be accepted for awarding the work. 2. The learned Government Pleader specifically points to the PWD Manual, which insists for furnishing 50% of the Performance Guarantee; as Treasury Deposit and 50% as Bank Guarantee. In such circumstance, there can be no deviation from the specific provision, is the contention. 3. In considering the prayer of the petitioner, this Court cannot ignore the fact that there are a number of writ petitions filed before this Court, by contractors seeking directions to the Government to pay up their dues, of works completed satisfactorily. There are also instances, where the retention amounts have not been refunded to the contractors, after the satisfactory completion of the work and guarantee period being over. The Government have been taking inconsistent stances as to the measurement being necessitated, approval being required from higher authorities or sanction being essential from the Finance Department. One department blaming the other has become the order of the day and there is absolute lack of co-ordination. The hapless contractors are left high and dry without satisfaction of their dues and are often faced with ruination for reason of the works having been completed often by taking loans. Added to this misery is the insistence of the Government to provide cash security as Performance Guarantee. It is also pertinent that despite orders issued by this Court, the Government often does not pay off the amounts in time and again the contractor is faced with the situation of coming back to this Court with a contempt petition. 4. In the overall circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to uphold the requirement for 50% Treasury Deposit, since on furnishing of Bank Guarantee itself, the Government can realise the amounts by enforcing the Bank Guarantee. 5. 4. In the overall circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to uphold the requirement for 50% Treasury Deposit, since on furnishing of Bank Guarantee itself, the Government can realise the amounts by enforcing the Bank Guarantee. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has often decried the practice of Courts permitting Bank Guarantee in lieu of hard cash, especially on the principle that the Government cannot run on Bank Guarantees. However the said principle does not apply in the case of Performance Guarantee. Performance Guarantee is not insisted for reason of any amounts being due from the Contractor to the Government. Performance Guarantee is only insisted upon to ensure that the work is satisfactorily completed and on abandonment or any failure or default in completion of the work, proceedings could be expeditiously taken against the contractor, so as to realise the loss and damages caused to the Government. Performance Guarantee is a security for anticipated loss and damages. Performance Guarantee is not a measure of revenue generation. On a mere apprehension that the work would not be satisfactorily completed, it is not fair of the Government to insist for 50% Treasury Deposit. In such circumstance, the Bank Guarantees Exts.P3 and P4, if properly furnished to the 2nd respondent, the same shall be accepted as the Performance Guarantee and the petitioner allowed to execute the agreement as per the award. The writ petition would stand disposed of. No costs.