Petitioner challenged the confirmation of tender by the District Tourism Promotion Council for running a comfort station. Court found no arbitrary action or illegality as the highest bidder was selected per stipulations. Writ petition dismissed.
The writ petition challenging the tender confirmation is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941
WP(C).No.10396 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
VIMALADITHYAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. CHENNAKUTTAN, NEERAMCODE VEED, KUTHANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SMT.ASHA P.KURIAKOSE SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, PALAKKAD - 678001.
2 THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-678001.
3 SODDIQU, THACHARKUNNATHU, MUNDUKKUNNU, KANJIRAPUZHA P.O., PIN-678593.
4 THE SECRETARY, THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, PALAKKAD-678001. BY ADVS. R1, R2 & R4 SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.10396 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner
seeking to declare that the confirmation of the tender submitted by the 3rd respondent without conducting an Auction for running comfort station and fancy shop at Kanjirapuzha garden within the limits of the District Tourism Promotion Council, Palakkad, on 12.02.2019 as per Ext.P1 Tender notification as illegal, since it was done in violation of the tender conditions stipulated therein, and for other consequential reliefs. Necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
says that an auction also will be held among the tenderers to choose the highest bidder. Therefore, if
the tender amount is less than the other tenderers, still the participants will get another opportunity to bid a higher amount and that will be beneficial to the Department also. On 12.02.2019 at 3 p.m., petitioner
W.P.(C) No.10396 of 2019
3
was present and had submitted his tender and petitioner
was waiting for the tender to be opened and also to commence the auction.
petitioner enquired with the Secretary as to the commencement of the auction and also the reserved amount from which auction will be conducted, petitioner was told that the reserve amount will be Rs.3.50 lakhs.
Therefore, petitioner felt that it will not be profitable to conduct a comfort station and stationery stores at such a huge amount. Petitioner stayed back till the tenders are opened and it was found that the 3rd respondent was the highest quoted tenderer at Rs.2
lakhs. The tender of the petitioner and three other participants were less than Rs.2 lakhs. However, the Secretary straight-away confirmed the tender amount
quoted by the 3rd respondent. According to the
petitioner, if auction was conducted in accordance with the stipulations contained under Ext.P1, petitioner
would have definitely participated in the same and would have quoted more than Rs.2 lakhs. That apart, it is submitted that, no reserve price for the auction finds a place in the Auction Notice. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner in order
W.P.(C) No.10396 of 2019
4
to secure the reliefs specified above.
W.P.(C) No.10396 of 2019
5
any other tenderers made any complaint about the tender
and auction conducted.
result of an after-thought and Ext.P2 was received by registered post by the 1st respondent on 03.04.2019,
evident from Ext.R1(c), and copy of the postal cover is produced as Ext.R1(d). It is clear from Ext.R1(d) that
Ext.R1(c) letter was sent only on 01.04.2019, showing the date of letter as 19.02.2019, which, according to
the respondents, is with a mala fide intention. It is also clear, in the writ petition, petitioner has
specified the amount quoted, deliberately as Rs.1.5 lakhs instead of Rs.1,00,500/-. Therefore, according to the respondents, the stipulations contained in Ext.P1 were scrupulously followed by the respondents and there is no manner of illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in conducting the auction.
W.P.(C) No.10396 of 2019
6
conducted by the respondents, in which the 3rd respondent is the successful bidder. Even though petitioner has a contention that auction was not conducted in accordance with the stipulations contained in Ext.P1, over and above sealed tenders received, it is clearly evident from the pleadings put forth by the respondents that auction was conducted by fixing the upset price at Rs.3.5 lakhs. However, none of the bidders have participated in the auction and expressed
their inability since the upset price is fixed at
Rs.3.5 lakhs. It was thereupon that sealed tenders
were opened and found that the 3rd respondent is the successful bidder by quoting the amount of Rs.2 lakhs, whereas the amount quoted by the petitioner is Rs.1,00,500/-, even though in the writ petition, the amount quoted by the petitioner is shown as Rs.1.5 lakhs, which is also clear from Ext.R1(b) list produced by the 1st respondent along with the counter affidavit. Moreover, petitioner has produced Ext.P2 before this Court, which is dated 19.03.2019, and it is clearly visible that the date '19.02.2019' was corrected by pen as '19.03.2019', whereas the copy of the same produced by the 1st respondent as Ext.R1(c) shows that the date is '19.02.2019'. But, from Ext.R1(d), it is
W.P.(C) No.10396 of 2019 7
clear that it was sent by post only on 01.04.2019.
Therefore, it can only be viewed that the attempt of the petitioner was to mislead this Court by producing Ext.P2 document with a corrected date.
petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands
also. I also do not find any arbitrariness or illegality or any malafides on the part of the respondents in confirming the quotation in favour of
the 3rd respondent, who was the highest bidder, and the respondents have scrupulously complied with the stipulations contained under Ext.P1.
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition fails, accordingly it is
dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
St/15.06.2019
W.P.(C) No.10396 of 2019
8
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.03.2019 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST SHOWING THE PERSONS WHO SUBMITTED TENDER ON 12/02/2019.
EXHIBIT-R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/02/2019 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R1(D)
TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER IN WHICH EXHIBIT-R1(C) IS RECEIVED.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
St/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether interference by judicial review is warranted regarding the auction conducted by the respondents where the third respondent emerged as the successful bidder.
Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily or with malafides in confirming the quotation in favour of the third respondent despite allegations of procedural violation.
Whether the petitioner genuinely cited reasons for non-participation or attempted to mislead the court regarding the tender proceedings.
Vimaladithyan
The Chairman, The District Tourism Promotion Council, Palakkad
The District Tourism Promotion Council, Palakkad
Soddiqu
Shaji P.Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
