IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 25461 of 2005(F)
1. C.V. HARISANKAR, ATTUKAL KANNETHU VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. V. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR,
3. M. PRAKASH, S/O. MARTIN LUTHER,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. KUNNATHUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent :SRI.L.MOHANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :01/02/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
..........................................................
W.P.(C) Nos.25461 OF 2005
& 24711 of 2005
...........................................................
DATED THIS THE 1ST FEBRUARY, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners in W.P.(C)25461 of 2005 who were the
successful bidders in the auction conducted on 27.7.2005 by the 2nd
respondent-Kunnathukal Grama Panchayat in respect of shop rooms in
Suphala Shopping Complex belonging to the Panchayat for the period
March, 2005-06 have filed the Writ Petition seeking to quash Ext.P6
re-auction notice issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners submit
that they being the highest bidders were directed to make earnest
money deposits by the Panchayat. Ext.P1 is the auction notification
dated 27.7.2005 and Ext.P2 series are copies of receipts issued by the
2nd respondent acknowledging deposit of earnest money by the
petitioners. The petitioners complain that though they have complied
with all formalities which are required from their side and the auction
was confirmed in their name, the 2nd respondent-Panchayat is yet to
execute an agreement or permit the petitioners to start their
operations. They in fact submitted representations before the 2nd
respondent and requested the 2nd respondent for execution of the
agreement and for permission to start business. Exts.P3, P4 and P5
WP(C)25461/05 & CONNECTED CASE
-2-
are copies of the representations. On receiving the representations,
the 2nd respondent has issued a fresh notification (Ext.P6) informing
that fresh auction in respect of the shop rooms already bid by the
petitioners will be conducted on 30.8.2005. The petitioners challenge
Ext.P6 on various grounds and have filed the Writ Petition not only for
quashing Ext.P6 but also for a direction compelling the 2nd respondent-
Panchayat to permit the petitioners to conduct business in the shop
rooms.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)24711 of 2005 had also participated
in the public auction conducted by the Panchayat. He was allotted
room No.3; room Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were allotted to one Velappan Nair
who later informed the Panchayat that he does not intend to take the
rooms on rent. The Panchayat therefore re-notified public auction of
room Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and re-auction was conducted on 27.7.2005.
The petitioner was the highest bidder for room No.2 and the Panchayat
confirmed the auction and issued Ext.P4 receipt. But it is understood
that since there are complaints regarding allotment of room No.5, the
Panchayat is taking steps for cancelling the auction conducted on
27.7.2005. Therefore, requesting for finalisation of the allotment after
confirming the auction, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition
WP(C)25461/05 & CONNECTED CASE
-3-
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue order
confirming the auction; for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled
to be allotted room No.2; and for a direction to the respondents to
hand over room No.2 in Suphala shopping complex to the petitioner
forthwith.
3. In W.P.(C)No.25461 of 2005, on behalf of the Panchayat the
Secretary has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is contended
therein that the Suphala Shopping Complex and Lodge is a commercial
building constructed by the Panchayat which consists of 7 shop rooms,
lodge, common bathrooms and toilets. Pursuant to the decision of the
Committee to rent out the building by auction, Ext.R2(a) auction
notification dated 3.6.2005 was issued. Ext.R2(a), it is contended,
contains a condition that auction is to be approved by the Panchayat
Committee. In the auction conducted on 15.6.2005, one Velappan
Nair was the highest bidder in respect of shop room Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5
for a monthly rent of Rs.7600/-, Rs.6550/-, Rs.5550/- and Rs.5150/-
respectively. The petitioner in W.P.(C)24711 of 2005 was the highest
bidder in respect of room No.3 for a monthly rent of Rs.4300/-. One
Appu was the highest bidder in respect of shop room No.7 for a
monthly rent of Rs.3150/-. One Sundaresan was the highest bidder in
WP(C)25461/05 & CONNECTED CASE
-4-
respect of lodge rooms. The Panchayat Committee approved the same
and notices were issued to those persons for remitting rent for 12
months less the earnest money deposit (EMD). Ext.R2(b) series,
seven in number, are copies of the notices. But Velappan Nair and
Sundaresan did not remit the amounts. Therefore, the Committee
decided on 16.7.2005 to re-auction the rooms in respect of which the
above two persons have not remitted the amount. It is accordingly
that auction notice was issued as per Ext.P1 notification. In the re-
auction conducted pursuant to Ext.P1, the bidders collectively and
intentionally did not raise the amount. The highest bid amounts in
respect of room Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were only Rs.2050/-, Rs.2500/-,
Rs.2100/- and Rs.1500/- respectively as against the earlier highest
amounts of Rs.7600/-, Rs.6550/-, Rs.5550/- and Rs.5150/-. Thus the
bid amounts in the re-auction conducted on 27.7.2005 were lesser
than one-half of the bid amounts in the first auction. Therefore, the
Panchayat Committee resolved under Ext.R2(c) resolution to cancel
the re-auction and to invite quotations. Based on the same, notices
were given to the petitioners intimating cancellation and requiring to
receive back the EMD. Ext.R2(d) series are copies of the notices.
Though quotation was also invited as per Ext.P6 notification, no further
WP(C)25461/05 & CONNECTED CASE
-5-
action has been taken in view of the stay order passed by this Court.
4. In W.P.(C)No.24711 of 2005 also a counter affidavit has
been filed, raising the self-same contentions and producing documents
Ext.R1(a) copy of the auction notification dated 3.6.2005, Ext.R1(b)
copy of the resolution dated 12.8.2005 and Ext.R1(c) copy of the
notice dated 16.8.2005.
5. Reiterating their contentions in the Writ Petitions, the
petitioners in both the cases have filed reply affidavits.
6. Sri.S.M.Prem and Sri.C.S.Ramanathan, Advocates addressed
me on behalf of the petitioners in the cases while Sri.L.Mohanan,
Advocate addressed me on behalf of the Panchayat. Learned counsel
addressed me on the basis of the pleadings raised by their respective
parties.
7. Having considered the submissions addressed before me, I am
of the view that the Panchayat is justified in going ahead with the third
auction which is now proposed. Both the Writ Petitions will accordingly
stand disposed of, however, in the following terms:-
The Panchayat is permitted to go ahead with the
third auction which is presently proposed. It is open to the
petitioners also to participate in the third auction. If the
WP(C)25461/05 & CONNECTED CASE
-6-
third auction does not turn out to be fruitful from the point
of view of the Panchayat, i.e., if no person comes forward
to quote amounts more than what was quoted by the
petitioners in the second auction, then the Panchayat will
not go for a fourth auction. Instead, the Panchayat will
have a private auction between those parties who
participated in the second auction alone and finalise the
same.
The parties will bear their respective costs.
(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl
WP(C)25461/05 & CONNECTED CASE
-7-