Giresh P.G. v. the Secretary, Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC7 Jul 2016WP(C)/9725/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Panchayat's decision to conduct a re-auction for the right to catch fish after the petitioner was declared the highest bidder. The Court dismissed the petition, held the re-auction permissible as it aims to generate higher income for the local body, but directed the return of the deposited amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Return of the deposited 1/6th bid amount to the petitioner within two weeks with 6% interest.

Giresh P.G. Vs the Secretary, Nayarambalam… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9725 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

GIRESH P.G.

¶8

S/O. GANGADHARAN, PONOTHITH HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE SECRETARY, NAYARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNKULAM DISTRICT- 682 509

¶12

2. NARAYAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM - 682 509

¶13

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU, SC, NAYARAMBALAM GRAMAPANCHAYAT R BY SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 9725 of 2016 (M)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. A3/6396/205 DATED 27/02/2016

¶19

P2TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING DEPOSIT OF RS.25,000/-

¶20

P3TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE SUBMISSION OF THE SEALED TENDER

¶21

P4TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE DEPOSIT OF RS.2,42,500 P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/03/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶22

P6COPY OF THE TENDER/AUCTION NOTICE DTD. 10.3.16

¶23

P7 COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY SRI. AMAL BABU P8 COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.

¶24

P9 COPY OF RE-TENDER/AUCTION DTD. 10.3.16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTS

¶25

P10 NOTICE DATED 30.3.16 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

---------- EXT.R1A	------------- COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED DTD. 27.2.16 INVITING TENDERS/AUCTION BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT FROM THE INTERESTED PERSONS.
EXT.R1B	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AUCTION DIARY IN RESPECT OF AUCTION HELD ON 9.3.16
EXT.R1C	COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER SUBMITTED BY SRI. AMAL BABAU WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE AUCTION OFFERING RS.16,35,000/-.
EXT.R1D	COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING DEPOSIT OF RS.2,80,000/- BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT TOWARDS THE ASSURANCE OF RS.16,35,000/- BY AAML BABU
EXT.R1E	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 10.3.16 AND REVOKED THE AUCTION HELD ON 9.3.16
EXT.R1F	COPY OF THE RE-AUCTION NOTICE PUBLISHED DATED 10.3.16 INVITING TENDERS/AUCTION BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT FROM THE INTERESTED PERSONS.
EXT.R1G	COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED DTD.28.1.14 INVITING TENDERS/AUCTION BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT FROM THE INTERESTED PERSONS
EXT.R1F	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 21.2.14 AND REVOKED THE AUCTION HELD ON 17.2.14
EXT.R1(A)	COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 30.3.16 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY //

¶28

P.A TO JUDGE

¶29

¶30

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶31

===================== W.P.(C) No.9725 of 2016 - M

¶32

====================== Dated this the 07^th day of July, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner is aggrieved with the re-auction conducted of the right to catch fish from a pond, within the local limits of the respondent Panchayat. The original tender was notified as per Ext.P1. As per the specific terms of the tender, an auction was to be conducted initially and then if the Panchayat was not satisfied with the bid amount, they could also open the tenders.

¶35

The petitioner had submitted a tender as per

¶36

Ext.P1 notification, auction conducted and the highest bid was only Rs.11,00,000/-. This was found to be not sufficient and the Panchayat decided to open the tenders. On opening the tender, the petitioner was found to be the highest bidder,

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.9725 of 2016 - M

¶39

which amount was Rs.14,55,000/-. The petitioner also deposited 1/6^th of the bid amount as is seen from Ext.P1. Despite the conditions in Ext.P1 having been satisfied, the petitioner was not awarded the contract. Later by Ext.P8, the Panchayat is said to have raised from the earlier auction proceedings and published a fresh notification as per Ext.P9.

¶40

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that behind the back of the petitioner, another tenderer had submitted a letter offering Rs.16,35,000/- and deposited 1/6^th of the said amount and it was that particular communication, which led to Ext.P8 decision. It is argued that the Panchayat could not have resorted to such measures behind the back of the petitioner and other tenderers. If at all negotiation was to be carried on, it should have been with all the tenderers, is the contention.

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No.9725 of 2016 - M

¶43

The contention of the petitioner would have been

¶44

upheld, if the Panchayat had awarded the contract to the other tenderer, who merely gave an offer after the auction and opening of tenders. But however, what the Panchayat has decided now is to conduct a re-auction and not grant or award as such to the other tenderer. Obviously looking at Ext.P8, as was argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, the communication was voluntarily made and the deposit too made, without any demand made by the Panchayat.

¶45

However, the communication indicated that the Panchayat could have obtained more amounts for the right awarded. It was in such circumstance, that the Panchayat decided to go for a re-auction, the re-auction is also scheduled and this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason why the same should be interdicted; despite the fact that the Panchayat

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C) No.9725 of 2016 - M

¶48

did not, in fact, act fairly, in relying on a mere communication by setting aside an award made through tenders invited. However, the Panchayat; the local body was swayed by the fact that re-tender would generate more income, this Court would not interfere with the re-tender ordered as per Ext.P9. The deposit made by the petitioner of 1/6^th of the bid amount shall be returned to the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, with 6% interest on the same.

¶49

The writ petition would stand closed with the above

¶50

reservation. No costs.

¶51

Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE

SB/07/07/2016

// true copy //

P.A to Judge.

Giresh P.G. v. the Secretary, Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giresh P.G. v. the Secretary, Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat

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

The Mlamally Tea Estates Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer,;Labour Court,Ekm.

S Raheem Vs Kandanassery Grama Panchayath

Jasmine Xevior M.L Vs the Karumkulam Grama Panchayat

Abidha Beegum V.S. Vs Aligarh Muslim University

Jayaraj S. Vs Kadapra Grama Panchayath

S. Baby Vs Secretary, Local Self Government