Dismissed

Tropic Trails v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2022WP(C)/28293/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a water sports operator seeking implementation of an extension order. The court held that by voluntarily participating in the tender, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the auction, making the relief against it. Sixty words.

What did the court decide?

Directions to implement the extension order were refused as the petitioner was estopped after participating in the tender.

Tropic Trails Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 28293 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

TROPIC TRAILS, V.P. 17/387H, VENTTINADU, VATTAPPARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695028, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.ANILKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ANITHA BHAVAN, VETTINADU, VATTAPPARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695028. BY ADVS. K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2 KERALA HYDREL TOURISM CENTRE (KHTC), 4TH FLOOR, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR. 3 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA HYDREL TOURISM CENTRE (KHTC), CABIN NO.426, 4TH FLOOR, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. 4 ADDL.R4. PERIYAR WATER SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED XI/1021, CHITTETHUKUDY BUILDING ADIMALY, IDUKKI685561, REP. BY ITS MG. DIRECTOR, BINU K. THOMAS. ( ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11-10-2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN WP(C) BY ADVS. THANKAPPAN M K JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN JOSHY P.O.

¶9

W.P.(C)No.28293/2022

¶10

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

W.P.(C)No.28293/2022

V.G.ARUN J.

W.P.(C) No.28293 of 2022

¶16

Dated this the 1st day of December 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner firm had been conducting Water Sports and Adventure Tourism activities at Munnar, Banasura Sagar and Kakki Dam sites, based on the agreement executed with the second respondent. Even after expiry of the agreement period, the petitioner continued in occupation of the premises. In the meanwhile, taking into account the impact of Covid-19 and lock down, the second respondent issued Ext.P5 order extending the agreement period by four years in case where the lease agreement is for ten years, and by two years where the lease agreement is for five years. Later, the second respondent initiated action for auctioning the sites in the petitioner's possession. Hence, this writ petition seeking the following reliefs ;

¶19

1).Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3 rd respondent to consider Exhibits P6 and P7, expeditiously within a time frame before the finality of the tender:

¶20

2). Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other

¶21

appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3 rd respondent

¶22

W.P.(C)No.28293/2022

¶23

¶24

to keep the tender proceedings if commenced in abeyance till the consideration of Exhibits P6 and P7;

¶25

3). Issue a direction to 3 rd respondent to implement Exhibit P5 order granting extension of period of another four years to the petitioner to conduct activities assigned as per Exhibit P2;

¶26

2. During pendency of the writ petition, the auction was conducted and the petitioner also participated. Of the three sites, the petitioner was declared the highest tenderer for Banasura Sagar and Kakki dam sites and the 4 th respondent was declared the highest tenderer for the Munnar site. The 4 th respondent executed agreement and has commenced activities at the Munnar site. The petitioner, despite being declared the lowest bidder, has not executed the agreement.

¶27

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is insisting on implementation of the extension of lease period granted as per Ext.P5 order. It is contended that participation in the tender will not take away the petitioner's right to seek implementation of Ext.P5. The second respondent's argument that Ext.P5 was subsequently withdrawn is patently false as evident from Exts.P9 and P10, as also the wording of Ext.R3(a).

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted

¶29

W.P.(C)No.28293/2022

¶30

¶31

that the petitioner's lease was for a period of six years and the period expired on 10/2/2022. Despite expiry of the lease period, the petitioner continued the activities at the three sites. Although Ext.P5 order was issued earlier, after the new Director took charge, it was decided to auction the sites rather than extending the period of lease. Having participated in the tender, the petitioner cannot turn around and seek implementation of Ext.P5 order.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that, on being declared as the highest tenderer, the 4th respondent executed the agreement, deposited the requisite amount and commenced activities at the Munnar site. Huge amounts have been expended for setting up the facilities. If Ext.P5 is implemented, it will cause extreme prejudice and loss to the 4th respondent.

¶33

In spite of the assertive submissions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeking implementation of Ext.P5, I am not inclined to grant such relief. After having voluntarily participated in the tender, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the auction. It is settled law that after participating in a selection process, the participants cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. I am not entering into the controversy as to whether Ext.P5 was subsequently withdrawn or not since, in my opinion, even if Ext.P5 is in existence that will not come to the petitioner's aid.

¶34

W.P.(C)No.28293/2022

¶35

¶36

For the aforementioned reasons the writ petition is dismissed, reserving the petitioner's right to seek civil remedies, if any available.

¶37

Sd/- V.G.ARUN Judge

dpk

W.P.(C)No.28293/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28293/2022

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 21.02.2017.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION OF WATER SPORTS DATED 11.02.2016 IN BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE BID ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND FEE PAID DATED 14.07.2022.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.08.2022 RECEIVED BY PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE OF THE COPY REPRESENTATION DATED 13.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.08.2022 BY THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 35TH GOVERNING BODY MEETING HELD ON 23-03-2022
Exhibit R3(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER DETAILS DATED 29-06- 2022 PUBLISHED IN E TENDERING SYSTEM GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit R3(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION LIST FOR OPERATING WATER SPORTS ACTIVITIES AT VARIOUS CENTERS UNDER KHTC
Exhibit R3(d)	TRUE COPY OF HE DETAILS OF VARIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH ARE E-TENDED AFTER EXT. R3(A) DECISION.
Exhibit R3(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KHTC(HQ)DB-3/2022-

¶43

W.P.(C)No.28293/2022

¶44

¶45

Exhibit R3(f)	23 DATED 10-08-2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KHTC/HQ/DB-3/2022- 23 DATED 10-08-2022 ISSUED TO M/S. PERIYAR WSPS KERALA
Exhibit R3(g)	TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.KHTC/34/HQ/2022-23 DATED 25-08-2022 ISSUED TO M/S. PERIYAR WATER SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
Exhibit R3(h)	TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.KHTC/35/HQ/2022-23 DATED 25-08-2022 ISSUED TO M/S. TROPIC TRAILS.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE GOVERNING BODY HELD ON 21.01.2021 OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P10	A COPY OF THE ACTION TAKEN REPORT DATED 29.07.2021.
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER ALLOTMENT SELECTION OF OPERATORS IN BOTH MUNNAR AND MALABAR CIRCUIT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(a)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R4(b)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.08.2022 SENT BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH E-MAIL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R4(c)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.KHTC/34/HQ/2022-2023 DATED 25.08.2022 ISSUE BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.4.
Exhibit R3(b)	True copy of the Tender details dated 29-6- 2022 published in e Tendering System Government of Kerala
Exhibit R4(d)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 29.08.2022 EXECUTED WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.4.
Exhibit R3(c)	True copy of the selection list for operating water sports activities at various centers

¶46

W.P.(C)No.28293/2022

¶47

¶48

under KHTC Exhibit R3(d) True copy of the details of various -establishments which are e-tended after Ext. R3(a) decision Exhibit R3(e) True copy of the letter No. KHTC/HQ/DB3/2022-23 dated 10-08-2022 issued to the petitioner Exhibit R3(f) True copy of the Letter No. KHTC/HQ/DB3/2022-23 dated 10-08-2022 issued to M/s. Periyar WSPS Kerala Exhibit R3(g) True copy of the work order No. KHTC/34/ HQ/2022-23 dated 25-08-2022 issued to M/s. Periyar Water Sports Private Limited Exhibit R3(h) True copy of the work order No. KHTC/35/HQ/2022-23 dated 25-08-2022 issued to M/s. Tropic Trails Exhibit R3(a) True copy of the Minutes of 35th Governing Body meeting held on 23-03-2022

Tropic Trails v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tropic Trails v. State of Kerala

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.S.Koshy Vs the Principal Secretary

Saroja Zacharia Vs State of Kerala

M.S.Abdul Hakeem, Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla K.K Vs the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway

Self Financing Para Medical College Vs State of Kerala

S.Unnikrishnan Nair Vs Santhy K