Allowed

Fathima Shaniba v. the Secretary

Kerala HC13 Dec 2021WP(C)/25862/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought refund of Rs.47 lakhs auction security deposit after being denied room allocation due to lack of amenities. Court directed respondents to refund the amount with interest within three months, noting the Municipality's financial inability allegation was dismissed by calling a re-auction.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to disburse the refund amount to the petitioner within a period of three months.

Fathima Shaniba Vs the Secretary — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 25862 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FATHIMA SHANIBA, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. RAMSHEER, SAAS , (P.O) THANA, KANNUR-670 012

¶8

BY ADVS. T.P.SAJID SHIFA LATHEEF

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY-670 101

¶11

2 THE CHAIRMAN, THALASSERY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY-670 101

¶12

SRI.I.V.PRAMOD, SC FOR THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.25862/2021

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2021

¶18

The petitioner, who is a 27 year old lady, is before

¶19

this Court seeking to direct the respondents to refund the deposit amount of Rs.47 lakhs to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of disbursement forthwith.

¶20

The petitioner states that she took part in the auction conducted by the Thalassery Municipality for renting out rooms in the new building constructed by the Municipality. The petitioner was allotted room No.GF-1 in the month of February, 2020 itself.

¶21

As per the terms and conditions of the auction, the petitioner remitted Rs.47 lakhs. It is the further case of the

¶22

WP(C).No.25862/2021

¶23

¶24

petitioner that the room has not been provided with electricity connection or water supply and even the keys of the room were not handed over to the petitioner.

¶25

In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation on 03.06.2021, seeking refund of the amount deposited, the receipt of which is evidenced by Ext.P4. Thereafter, the petitioner reiterated the request as per Ext.P5, on 05.11.2021. However, the amount due to the petitioner has not been paid. The petitioner would contend that the respondents are compellable to repay Rs.47 lakhs deposited by the petitioner with interest forthwith.

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the amount is to be returned to the petitioner but due to the financial crisis being faced by the Thalassery Municipality, they are not in a position to pay the money to the petitioner. The Standing Counsel sought six months time for repayment.

¶27

WP(C).No.25862/2021

¶28

¶29

Going through the averments made in the writ petition, it is seen that after receiving the application from the petitioner for refund of the deposited amount, the Municipality has called for another public auction/tender for the same room which was earlier allotted to the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the room has been now re-allotted to one Mr.Mohan. If that be the case, the respondents can very well effect payment in a lesser period.

¶30

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the amount payable to the petitioner, within a period of three months.

¶31

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶32

¶33

WP(C).No.25862/2021

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25862/2021

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

Exhibit P1 TRUE OF THE AUCTION/TENDER NOTICE DATED 10.2.2020 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY FOR 1/3RD AMOUNT DEPOSITED DATED 27.2.2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 5.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY AFTER RECEIVING THE APPLICATION DATED 3.6.2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.11.2021 THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS

Fathima Shaniba v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fathima Shaniba v. the Secretary

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

Sreekumaran Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.

Muttath Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

George Elias and Associates, Vs State of Kerala

Sathyadevan K Vs Kerala Water Authority

Jacob George Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

St.Roch'S High School/Tti-Lps, Vs District Collector