Dismissed

Manikandan v. Agali Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC4 Dec 2019WP(C)/10054/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the auction of shop rooms by Agali Grama Panchayat, alleging corruption and illegal allotment to named respondents in an unfinished building. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish bona fides as he did not specify his profession or intended business. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach competent authorities regarding corruption allegations.

Manikandan Vs Agali Grama Panchayat — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019(F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANIKANDAN

¶8

S/O. PAZHANISWAMI GOWNDER, AGALI AMSOM DESOM, P.O., AGALI, MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKAKD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 AGALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT PREDESTINED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O., AGALI 678 581.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY, AGALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O., AGALI 678 581.

¶13

3 AGALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS RESIDENT P.O. AGALI 678 581.

¶14

4 LIMI RAJESH, W/O. RAJESH, RAJANI BHAVAN, P.O., MATTATHUKD 678 581.

¶15

5 P. RAMAMOORTHY, S/O. PAZHANISWAMI, P.O. MATTATHUKAD 678 581.

¶16

6 A. KRISHNAN, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, VINEESH NIVAS, KOTTATHARA P.O., 678 581.

¶17

7 MURUKADAS. K.M., S/O. MUTHUSWAMY CHETTIYAR, VADAKOTTATHARA P.O., KOTTATHARA 678 581.

¶18

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN R4-7 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 2

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner claims to be the

¶23

Palakkad District President of a political

¶24

party by name 'All India Anna Dravida Munnetta Kazhakam' and alleges that the action of Agali Grama Panchayat in having alloted shop rooms, in a market belonging to them in Ward No.7, to respondents 4 to 7 is shrouded in secrecy and hence vitiated by corruption and illegalities.

¶25

The petitioner says that even

¶26

before construction of the building had been completed, the Panchayat had, through Ext.P1 resolution, decided to allot the rooms, in an unfinished manner, to persons of their choice; and that obviously, therefore, the rent now obtained is much lesser than what would have been garnered if the building had been completed. He says that even though Ext.P1 decision was taken on 25/02/2019, on 11/03/2019 another decision was taken, a copy of which is

¶27

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 3

¶28

produced as Ext.P2, recording that rooms were auctioned on 07/03/2019 and that

¶29

respondents 4 to 7 herein were found to be the highest bidders.

¶30

clear from Exts.P1 and P2 that the

¶31

Panchayat has colluded to allot the shop

¶32

rooms to respondents 4 to 7 in a

¶33

surreptitious manner, without causing any publicity or calling for public tenders,

¶34

as is required under the applicable Rules and Regulations; and therefore, that the entire process is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

¶35

The petitioner asserts that he

¶36

wanted to bid in the auction, if it had

¶37

been done properly because, he is interested in occupying one of the shop rooms 'in search of his livelihood' but

¶38

that he has been denied that opportunity by the illegal action of the Panchayat.

¶39

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 4

¶40

The petitioner, therefore, prays that Exts.P1 and P2 decisions, as well as the consequent agreements entered into by the Panchayat with respondents 4 to 7, be declared as illegal and the same be

¶41

quashed.

¶42

Shri.K.Mohanakannan - learned

¶43

Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, in response, submitted that a decision had been taken by the Panchayat on 25/02/2019, as is evident from Ext.P1, to conduct auction of four shop rooms in the ground floor of the market complex and that notices for the same were published in the offices of the Panchayat, Block Panchayat and the Village Office. He says that a copy of the auction notice has been placed on record as Ext.R2(a) and that the endorsements made by the competent Authorities of the Panchayat, Block

¶44

Panchayat and the Village Office in substantiation are evident from the said

¶45

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 5

¶46

document itself.

¶47

The learned Standing Counsel says that in addition to this, a public

¶48

announcement was made by the Panchayat in the entire locality using a vehicle, informing that the auction was to be conducted on 07/03/2019 and that all

¶49

interested persons may participate in the same. He says that ten persons responded

¶50

to this call of the Panchayat and that respondents 4 to 7 were found to be the highest bidders, leading to agreements being entered into with them on 27/04/2019

¶51

and the rooms were alloted to them as per law. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶52

submissions, Shri.P.Jayaram - learned

¶53

counsel for the petitioner, submitted that

¶54

a detailed reply affidavit has been filed by his client controverting each of the

¶55

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 6

¶56

afore assertions of the Panchayat and he

¶57

contends that the very fact that agreements were entered into by the

¶58

Panchayat with respondents 4 to 7 pending this lis would clearly substantiate his

¶59

client's allegations. He says that Ext.R4(a), in fact, runs contrary to the terms specified in Ext.P2 resolution and

¶60

establishes that no public auction, as claimed by the Panchayat, was actually held.

¶61

Shri.Jayaram further says that, as has been already stated above, construction of the building had not been completed on the date on which Ext.R4(a) was issued and that the rent now obtained from respondents 4 to 7 is much below than what would have been obtained by the Panchayat had proper auction been conducted after the building had been completed. He says that it is unheard of that a building is auctioned for rent even

¶62

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 7

¶63

before it is completed and that this clearly fortifies his client's case that respondents 4 to 7 are handpicked by the Panchayat, since they owe allegiance to a particular political dispensation; and therefore, that the process impugned in this writ petition be declared to be

¶64

vitiated by malice and illegality.

¶65

When I consider the afore submissions, prima facie, I find some

¶66

force in the contentions of the petitioner from the angle of the manner in which the auction has been conducted. This is because, it is rather strange that the Panchayat should have taken Ext.P1 resolution stating that since they were in need of money, they auctioned the buildings even before it was completed; and indubitably, therefore, it is certainly possible that the rent now garnered through the process mentioned by the Panchayat may be much lower than what

¶67

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 8

¶68

would have been obtained had the buildings

¶69

been completed and auctioned in such state.

¶70

That said, however, I am

¶71

dissuaded not to grant any relief, as has been sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition, for the singular reason that I cannot find his bonafides to have been established, particularly because he

¶72

says that he is the President of a political party but there is nothing on record to demonstrate or establish his contention that he wanted to participate in the auction, especially because he has not specifically mentioned the business that he intends to run or which he is running now, apart from saying that he “intended to participate in the auction

¶73

for the purpose of bidding a shop room in search of his livelihood”(s ic ).

¶74

Pertinently, the petitioner has not disclosed his avocation except that he is

¶75

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 9

¶76

a political leader nor has he informed this Court as to the manner in which he intended to use any such room for which he wanted to participate in the auction; and am consequently, persuaded to the view that the reasons stated by the petitioner in approaching this Court cannot be seen to be credible and hence, his prayer to have the auction and the agreements now entered into by the Panchayat with respondents 4 to 7 be quashed cannot be acceded to.

¶77

For the afore reasons, I do not deem it appropriate to grant any relief, as has been prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition, but am of the view that he certainly can invoke the remedies before the competent Authorities as regards the manner in which the auction had been done;

¶78

and in such event, his allegations regarding corruption and such other vitiating circumstances will certainly

¶79

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 10

¶80

have to be looked into and taken note of

¶81

by such Authorities as per law.

¶82

In the afore circumstances, I close

¶83

this writ petition without granting any of the reliefs sought for; however, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Authorities with respect to the allegations of corruption is the auction process and the execution of agreements to respondents 4 to 7; in which event, the

¶84

said Authorities will consider the same and take appropriate action thereon, including by causing a proper

¶85

investigation in terms of law, without any avoidable delay.

¶86

After I dictated this judgment,

¶87

Shri.Jayaram brought to my notice that, as per the proceedings now placed on record

¶88

by the Panchayat, the licence to respondents 4 to 7 with respect to the rooms appear to be one in perpetuity,

¶89

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 11

¶90

since they have been given the option of continuing this lease by paying a mere 10% enhancement every year. He says that this is also contrary to the provisions of law since, it has now been well settled in law that shop rooms belonging to Local Self Government Institutions will have to be auctioned on an yearly basis.

¶91

I am certain that it is a matter that

¶92

the Panchayat will have to keep in mind

¶93

when the time for renewal of the lease

¶94

arrives in the year 2020; and I consequentially, leave liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Authorities, including this Court, at that time, if he has any grievance subsisting in this regard.

¶95

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶96

Sd/-

¶97

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶98

JUDGE

¶99

MC/4.12.19

¶100

WP(C).No.10054 OF 2019 12

¶101

APPENDIX

¶102

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶103

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 3/1 DATED 25.2.2019 ADOPTED BY THE AGALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶104

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 40/1 DATED 11.3.2019 ADOPTED BY THE AGALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶105

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/3/2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT

¶106

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SHOWING THE POSTAGE OF EXHIBIT P3 PRESENTATION TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP ROOMS BUILT BY AGALI GRAMA PANCHAT.

¶107

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK OF THE SHOP ROOMS OF AGALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT BEING HELD IN HASTE DURING NIGHT TIME.

¶108

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SITUATION EXISTED AT THE BUILDING AFTER THE FILING OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY RESPONDENTS 4TO7

¶109

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶110

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE PANCHAYAT ON 26.2.2019

¶111

EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYAT DATED 11.3.2019 CONFIRMING THE AUCTION IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7. EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AUCTION DIARY MAINTAINED BY THE PANCHAYAT IN RESPECT OF THE SHOP ROOMS EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 27.4.19

Manikandan v. Agali Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. Agali 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

P.Rajappan Nair Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha

Moly Vs the Secretary, Kollam Corporation

Sahajan.M.E Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Bhagyalakshmi Vs the Secretary

D.Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Velayudhan Nair Vs the Secretary