The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a successful bidder challenging the allotment of commercial space. The court held that the petitioner was aware of the notified location and could not seek a change of place at this stage to evade contractual obligations.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.11530 of 2012
Date : 05.07.2012
Between :
E.V.Satish Kumar.
…..Petitioner
And
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, rep. by its Executive Officer & another.
…..Respondents
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11530 of 2012
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under:
“to issue a direction or order one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent changing the allotment of vacant space near Sudarshanam counter in Alipiri contrary to the advertisement Roc.No.PR/418744/Adv 257/PRO/2011, dated 07.12.2011 given by the 1st respondent in Roc.No.Rev2/10237/AEO(Rev)/TPT/2011, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents to allot the vacant space near existing sudarshan counter in Alipiri to the petitioner for carrying out business for selling of water/cooldrinks/tea/ coffee/snacks to the pilgrims as per the advertisement given by the respondents.”
The Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams has issued a tender notification inviting bids for allotment of place admeasuring 15x12 feet near Sudarshan token counter, Alipiri, for the purpose of selling cool drinks, coffee, tea, snacks etc. Petitioner is one of the bidders and his bid was accepted and proceedings dated 7th January 2012 were issued in Roc.No.Rev2/10237/AEO(Rev)/TPT/11, accepting the bid of the petitioner, who offered a licence fee of Rs.1,00,082/-
per month, and by the same proceedings, he is permitted to erect a bunk in the space of 15x12 feet at Sudarshan token counter, Alipiri, as per the tender conditions. Petitioner was also requested to pay 6 months licence fee in advance i.e. Rs.6,00,492/- as security deposit, on or before 12.02.2012.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 02.02.2012, stating that there is change of place for sale of Sudarshan tokens and from 3 a.m. onwards, pilgrims wait at the said centre, and at that hour, it is not possible for the pilgrims to come to the old Sudarshan token counter to have tea, coffee, snacks etc., by crossing the bye-pass road, which is a busy one. Therefore, in the said representation, the petitioner has requested to allot space near the building which is constructed for new Sudarshan token counter and luggage centre.
In this writ petition, it is the case of petitioner that the respondents have not clearly notified as to whether the allotment of site was at new Sudarshan counter or at the old one. It is stated that he has offered the rent of Rs.1,00,082/- per month, thinking that he will be allotted space at new Sudarshan counter to be opened by the respondents. It is his grievance that his representation has been rejected by endorsement dated 31.03.2012, issued in Roc.No.Rev 2/10237/AEO(Rev)/Tpt/11.
Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent-
Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. In the counter, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the respondents have published notification dated 08.12.2011 in Telugu newspapers inviting bids for award of licence in respect of space measuring 15x12 feet for selling of cool drinks/coffee/snacks near Sudarshan counter, Alipiri, Tirupathi, for a period of three years, by creating a temporary bunk with the own funds of bidders. The tenders were opened on 23.12.2011 and petitioner was the successful bidder. It is stated that the same place was earlier allotted to another licencee, and the earlier licence period expired on 14.02.2012, as such, the petitioner was requested to take possession of the said space within 7 days after 14.02.2012, therefore, it is clear that tenders were invited in respect of the place granted earlier to the date of notification. It is stated that there is no mention either in the tender schedules or in the tender confirmation orders regarding change of space. It is stated that all the persons participated in the tender process have inspected the space before offering their bids and the petitioner herein was fully aware of the space for which the tenders were invited, but after participating in the tender process, he is now trying to wriggle out from his obligations by making such false claim.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents and
also perused the notification issued by the respondents and the confirmation proceedings as well as the representation filed by the petitioner.
From the tender notification, it is clear that the respondents have invited bids in respect of the open space near Sudarshan token counter. It is also to be noticed at this juncture that earlier, same space was leased out to a third party, who has erected a temporary shed and was doing business in cool drinks, coffee, snacks etc. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the claim of the petitioner that he understood the place notified at the building which is constructed for new Sudarshan counter and also for luggage storage. It is also to be noted that earlier, there was no such stall at all at the place where the new Sudarshan counter is opened. Even from the representation dated 02.02.2012 filed by the petitioner, which is in Telugu, it is clear that he has correctly understood the place which was notified earlier, but apprehending that he may not run business at the place which is allotted, he wanted change of place. Once a particular place is notified by the respondents, and the petitioner having responded to the same and emerged as a successful bidder, is not entitled for change of place at this stage, contrary to the terms of tender notified by the respondents. In that view of the matter, as the respondents are offering the very same place which is the subject matter of tender notification, it cannot be said that
they are allotting the place other than the one notified by them. As averred in the counter affidavit, having emerged as a successful bidder, the petitioner cannot wriggle out from his contractual obligations, at this stage, by seeking to change the place allotted to him.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.14534 of 2012 also stands dismissed.
______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
5th July 2012 ajr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a successful bidder in a tender for commercial space is entitled to claim a change of location contrary to the tender terms.
Whether the request to allot space near the new Sudarshan counter constitutes an arbitrary and illegal deviation from the notified tender.
E.V.Satish Kumar
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams
Executive Officer
R. SUBHASH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
