IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2311 of 2009(A)
1. C.K.GOPI, SIVAS HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR
... Petitioner
2. P.A. RAVI, PULIKKANTHOTTIYIL,
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
3. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :06/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 2311 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Raman, J,
Petitioners are stated to be devotees of Ettumanoor
Sree Mahadeva Temple. This writ petition is filed as a public
interest litigation so as to avoid loss to the Devaswom as a
result of non-payment of the contract amount after the
stipulated period. It is pointed out that right to sell the items
through the various stalls are auctioned through Kuthakalelam.
The auction purchaser is to deposit 10% of the amount initially
and if he is the highest bidder, he will have to deposit 50% of
the auction amount on confirmation of auction sale. For the
remaining 50%, the highest bidder used to give solevency
certificates. No bank guarantee or valid security is obtained
for this 50% amount. As a result, in case of default, the
Devaswom will be losing 50% of the bid amount.
WPC. 2311/2009. 2
2. The remarks filed by the Devaswom Board through
Secretary shows that it is only in the rarest of rate cases that this
happends since no extension is normally given after the expiry of
the six months period in case the 25% thereafter is not remitted
before such expiry.
3. The Local Fund Auditor has also suggested that by
incorporating appropriate clauses in the tender condition and in the
agreement so as to plug any loophole and to ensure that no loss is
sustained to insist for a bank guarantee for 50% of the bid amount.
No specific remark is offered by the Devaswom in the matter.
4. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, we
find that sufficient security by way of immovable property is
required to be furnished at the time of entering into the contract.
The problem arises because atleast in some cases where the
contractor is permitted to continue even after six months without
he being remitted 25% of the amount may result in loss owing to
his default in payment of 25% unless suit for realisation is not filed
WPC. 2311/2009. 3
within three years. Therefore, we direct that in cases where six
months period expires and 25% is not remitted before the expiry of
the said period, either the contract be terminated and loss recovered
or insist for security by way of Bank Guarantee.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. Raman,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.