Dismissed

Satheesan v. Vs Tavancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC13 Nov 2013WP(C)/27298/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed writ petitions filed by stall concessioners challenging the Travancore Devaswom Board's re-auction of Sabarimala stalls. The Court held that the Board cannot curtail its powers to ensure devotee welfare and convenience, noting the new stalls would not affect existing petitioners' businesses due to spatial separation and layout. The petitions failed and were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petitions were dismissed as they failed to establish that the new stalls would affect the petitioners' business or that the Board lacked power to proceed with the auction.

Satheesan v. Vs Tavancore Devaswom Board — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/22ND KARTHIKA, 1935

¶7

WP(C).No. 27298 of 2013 (J)

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:-:

¶9

SATHEESAN V., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.R.VELUKUTTY, CHERUVILA HOSUE, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O. VADAVUKODE, NEYYATTINKARA

¶10

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 126.

¶11

RAJU K., AGED 46 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KUTTIKKATTU KIZHAKKETHU HOUSE ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., OCHIRA, KOLLAM - 690 547.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:

¶14

TAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SABARIMALA DEVASWOM SABARIMALA, PIN - 689 645.

¶16

BY SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2013 ALONG WITH WPC (C ) NO.27749/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 27298 of 2013 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28.08.2013 FOR AUCTIONING GROUND RENT RATES FOR STALLS ETC AT SABARIMAL BETWEEN 12.11.2013 TO 11.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE GENERAL/SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF E-TENDER PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 28.08.2013. EXHIBIT P3. COPYH OF THE BID MANAGEMENT DATA/BID INFORMATION ON PUBLISHED IN E-TENDERING SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION DATED 10.09.2013 PUBLISHED IN E-TENDERING SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION UBLISHED IN E- TENDERING SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF E-TENDERING NOTICE DATED 18.10.2013 FOR TEH E- TENDERING ON 24.10.2013 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED ON 04.11.2013 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROTEXT OF RE-AUCTION. EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE PLAN SHOWING THE SHOPS AND OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE SABARIMALA

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶27

W.P. (C ) Nos. 27298 & 27749 of of 2013

¶28

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Ramachandran Nair,J.

¶31

Both these writ petitions have been filed by the tenderers, who have been auctioned right to conduct stalls in Sabarimala. As far as petitioners in W.P.(C) No.27298/2013 are concerned, they are given right to conduct stalls, namely Nos.29 and 30 (1^st petitioner) and 39 (2^nd petitioner) mentioned in Ext.P1 notification. They have given various details in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. According to them, Ext.P7 is the tender notification published under the pretext of re-auction. But in that process, the Travancore Devaswom Board has added few new items for auction as Nos.223 to 226. Their objections are mainly with respect to Item Nos.223 and 224. It is submitted that these stalls are proposed under the newly constructed flyover and in front of the petitioners' stalls. Their objection is that for opening such new stalls that too under the guise of re-auction, new shops

¶32

W.P. (C ) Nos. 27298 & 27749 of of 2013

¶33

¶34

cannot be notified which will invalidate the tender notification.

¶35

As far as the petitioner in W.P (C) No.27749 of 2013 is also concerned, the very same allegations have been made and he is the tenderer for Item No.31 in Ext.P2 notification. Going by the the details in Ext.P2, it is seen that the same is near to Shop No.30.

¶36

We had called a report from the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala in W.P (C) No.27298/2013 and a detailed report has been submitted. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the report as follows:

¶37

“In the auction, petitioner No.1 obtained right to run two stalls (S.7, for short, (Sl.No.29 in Ext.P1) and S.8, for short, (Sl.No.30 in Ext.P1). The space for running S.7 and S.8 is situated on the immediate west of Malikappuram Nadapanthal and on the east of Malikappuram Water Tank. A road which runs from the south of Donor House No.6 DH.6 for short, towards south passes adjacent to the above mentioned two stalls (S7 and S8). The eastern boundary of the two stalls is the western retaining wall (having a height of 4.65 metre) of Malikappuram Nadapanthal. The opening of both the stalls is towards west facing the above mentioned road.

¶38

In paragraph 4 of the report, it is further stated as herein

¶39

W.P. (C ) Nos. 27298 & 27749 of of 2013

¶40

¶41

below:-

¶42

“ Since the opening of stall Nos.7 and 8 is towards west and there is no access through the western portion of Malikappuram Nadapanthal, running of stall Nos.223 and 224 will no way affect the business proposed to be done in S.7 and S.8”

¶43

It will show that as far as S.7 and S.8 namely

¶44

those tendered by the 1^st petitioner in W.P © No.27298/2013 is concerned, running of Stall Nos.223 and 224 will no way affect his business. It is mainly because stall Nos. 7 and 8 are facing west and there is no access through the western portion of Malikappuram Nadapanthal. As far as 2^nd petitioner in W.P © No.27298/2013 is also concerned, the following will show that there is no basis in the arguments raised. Paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of the report read as follows:

¶45

“5. Stall No.17,S.17, for short (Sl.No.39 as per Ext.P1) has been auctioned in favour of petitioner No.2. S.17 is situated on the east of Malikappuram Nadappanthal and on the south of NSS Medical Aid Centre. The level difference of this stall from stall Nos.223 and 224 is approximately 12 metres. Pilgrims will have to climb 63 steps from Malikkappuram Nadapanthal to reach S.17.

¶46

W.P. (C ) Nos. 27298 & 27749 of of 2013

¶47

¶48

TDB had also proposed to auction four more stalls (S.4, S.5,S.6,and S.16) by way of Ext.P1 notification situated on the immediate west of DH.7, the location of which is about 120 metres away from the proposed new stalls (It is learnt that S4, S5,S6 and S16 have not been so far auctioned out owing to lack of successful bidders).

¶49

The walkable distance from Stall Nos.223 and 224 to S.17 is approximately 75 metres. Considering the walkable distance from the new stalls and the fact that four more stalls, situated approximately 120 metres away from S.17, have been proposed to be auctioned and further taking into account the level difference from the new stalls to S.17 I am of the view that the business of petitioner No.2 will not be substantially affected as a result of the opening of the new stalls.”

¶50

The details will show that to reach the 2^nd petitioner's stall No.39 climbing of 63 steps from the Malikappuram Nadapanthal is required and it is situated south of the NSS Medical Aid Centre. In that view of the matter, new stalls under the fly over will not affect the 2^nd petitioner also. In the case of Item No.30 which is involved in W.P (C) No.27298/2013, the same reasoning will apply to it also.

¶51

We are of the view that the powers of the Travancore Devaswom Board to auction the stalls cannot be curtailed as

¶52

W.P. (C ) Nos. 27298 & 27749 of of 2013

¶53

¶54

sought for since the Board will have to take the interest of the devotees and their welfare and convenience. The various areas where the stalls are locationed are spread over to different directions and access to these shops are also from different sides. Therefore, none of the petitioners can complain of affecting adversely their commercial interest by the stalls tendered by others who have been given right to conduct new stalls. Hence, these writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed.

¶55

Sd/(T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge)

¶56

Sd/(B. Kemal Pasha, Judge)

¶57

¶58

/True copy/

¶59

P.S to Judge

Satheesan v. Vs Tavancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesan v. Vs Tavancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Yusaf Vs Kamalakara Panicker

General Manager ,Abt Parcel Service Vs P K Jameela

K.C. Ashokan Vs Kandathil Sasidharan

Thiruvithamkore Devaswom Empolyees Front Vs Travankore Devaswom Board

K.R Sanal Kumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Temple Advisory Committee Vs Travancore Devaswom Board