IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8956 of 2010(T)
1. NOOJUM,S/O.ALI KANNU, TC 46/499,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CORPORATIN OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
... Respondent
2. HAKKIM, T.C.46/718, MANIKYAVILAKOM,
3. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.AHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/04/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.8956 of 2010 (T)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 8th day of April, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. In respect of the public markets maintained by the 1st
respondent Corporation, the practice adopted was that it will invite
tenders, conduct auction and accept whichever is higher.
3. In so far as for the year 2010-2011 is concerned, in
respect of 18 public markets maintained by the Corporation,
tenders were invited by Exts.P1 to P3, and Ext.P4 contains the
conditions. Clause 3 of Ext.P4 provides that after the auction,
quotations received will be opened and inspected and the highest
offer received will be accepted. It further provides that if the
Secretary feels that the response received in auction/quotation is
inadequate, it will be open to the Secretary not to confirm the
auction or to go for reauction.
WP(C) No.8956/2010
-2-
4. In so far as the Ambalathara public market of the
Corporation is concerned, in response to Exts.P1 to P3, two
quotations were received on the last date, i.e. 27/01/2010 of which
the petitioner’s was the higher. Auction was scheduled on
28/01/2010 and nobody participated in the auction. Despite the
petitioner having made the highest offer of Rs.3,51,500/-, auction
was not confirmed in his favour. He made representations to the
Mayor, and that was pending.
5. At that stage, the 2nd respondent, who did not submit
any quotation in response to Exts.P1 to P3 or appear for the auction,
filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent, which was numbered as
O.P.No.170/2010. Notice was served on the petitioner and the
Corporation. They filed their objections. Meanwhile, the petitioner
also approached the Ombudsman complaining that despite long
lapse of time, auction was not confirmed in his favour. His
complaint was numbered as O.P.No.355/2010. Both
O.P.Nos.170/2010 & 355/2010 were considered by the
Ombudsman and Ext.P9 order was passed directing reauction. It is
challenging Ext.P9 this writ petition is filed.
WP(C) No.8956/2010
-3-
6. A reading of Ext.P9 shows that the Ombudsman has
accepted the case canvassed by the petitioner and the Corporation
that as on 27/01/2010 two quotations were received, and that of
the two, the quotation submitted by the petitioner was the higher.
It is also accepted that on 28/01/2010 auction was scheduled and
that auction was not held as nobody participated in the auction. On
accepting these two contentions, the Ombudsman rejected the case
of the 2nd respondent that tender was invited and auction was held
in a secretive manner. After having held so, instead of directing
confirmation of the auction in favour of the petitioner, the
Ombudsman proceeded to pass an order directing that in the fitness
of things, it is only appropriate that the parties are given one more
opportunity to participate in the auction. Accordingly, reauction
was directed to be held.
7. In my view, this course of action adopted by the
Ombudsman is totally erroneous. The Ombudsman after having
accepted the case pleaded by the petitioner and the Corporation
that tenders were received, auction was scheduled but was not held
as nobody participated in the auction, and that the petitioner was
WP(C) No.8956/2010
-4-
the highest bidder; and after rejecting the case of the 2nd
respondent that the auction was held in a secretive manner, should
have as a consequence directed confirmation of auction in favour of
the petitioner. On the other hand, reauction is ordered. Once the
steps taken by the Corporation have been upheld, the Ombudsman
has no power to impose its own views in another manner, as it has
done in Ext.P9.
In my view, for that reason, Ext.P9 to the extent it directs
reauction is illegal and is only to be set aside and I do so.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st
respondent to confirm the auction in respect of the Ambalathara
public market in favour of the petitioner. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg