IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23157 of 2008(F)
1. GANESH.B.MENON
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREEMOOLANAGARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.JALEEL
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.AJAYAGHOSH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/08/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.23157/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 is a tender notice published by the respondent
Panchayat for conduct of Jankar service, connecting
Manjapetti Thekkekovilakam area. Petitioner was one of the
bidders. In Ext.P2 judgment rendered by this court in WP
(c).No.18729/2008 filed by the petitioner, allowing the writ
petition, this court held as follows;
“For all these reasons, I am satisfied
that the petitioner is justified in
seeking confirmation of the auction in
his favour. Therefore, the writ petition
is disposed of directing that auction
pursuant to Ext.P3 will be confirmed in
favour of the petitioner. Panchayat is
WP(c).No.23157/2008 2
directed to require the petitioner to
remit the EMD which it has refunded
and confirm the auction in his name as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate
within 10 days of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
Needless to say that the above
directions are issued on the
assumption that the petitioner satisfied
all eligibility conditions of Ext.P3 and
this is a matter for the Panchayat to
examine and in case if he does not
satisfy any of the eligibility conditions
of Ext.P3, Panchayat will not be bound
to confirm the auction.”
2. In this writ petition, the complaint is that, by Ext.P3
dated 19.7.2008, petitioner was called upon to comply with
the requirements mentioned therein within 3 days. He is
WP(c).No.23157/2008 3
also asked to execute the agreement in a stamp paper
worth 5% of the contract value and also to remit 50% of
the bid amount. According to him, in terms of the tender
notice his obligation is to pay the amount only in four
instalments and therefore the demand for payment of 50%
is illegal.
3. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit, wherein
it is stated that, in terms of the judgment, the Panchayat
was required to complete the formalities within 10 days of
the receipt of the judgment. The judgment was received by
them on 18.7.2008 and it was thereafter the Panchayat has
Ext.P3 required the petitioner to complete the formalities
within 3 days. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P3,
petitioner had made Ext.R1 application dated 24.7.2008
seeking extension of time till 27.8.2007 and that the
Panchayat has granted time as requested for. It is stated
that during the extended period, the petitioner did not
comply with the directions in Ext.P3.
WP(c).No.23157/2008 4
4. In so far as the demand for payment of 50% of the
amount payable is concerned, referring to Ext.P1 tender
notice, counsel for the Panchayat submits that clause 5
provides that at the time of provisional confirmation, the
successful bidder is required to remit one of the four
instalments payable by him. It is stated that at the time of
execution of the agreement, bidder is to remit the second
instalment. Since the petitioner was to execute the
agreement as directed by this court, in view of the fact that
the petitioner had not made the initial payment, the
Panchayat required him to remit 50% towards the first and
second instalments payable. Similarly, so far as the
contention of the petitioner against the direction of the
Panchayat to execute the agreement on a stamp paper
worth 5% of the contract value, the counsel for the
Panchayat has referred me to Ext.P1 and submits that it is
one of the conditions of the tender itself.
WP(c).No.23157/2008 5
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
petitioner and also the standing counsel who entered
appearance on behalf of the Panchayat. In so far as the
paucity of time pleaded by the petitioner, I must say that ,
I do not find any substance in the contention. This is for the
reason that, though initially by Ext.P3, the petitioner was
granted only 3 days time which included a Sunday and a
Hartal day, by Ext.R1 is dated 24.7.2008, at his request
the Panchayat had extended time till 27.8.2008. If that be
so, petitioner had sufficient time to complete the
requirements of Ext.P3. That apart in this writ petition filed
on 30th July, 2008, the petitioner has not even mentioned
about the filing of the request for enlargement of time by
Ext.R1. Thus, since the Panchayat on their own extended
time till 27.8.2007, the petitioner cannot complain of
paucity of time to comply with Ext.P3.
6. What remains is the objection of the petitioner
regarding the demand of the Panchayat for remitting 50% of
WP(c).No.23157/2008 6
the bid amount. As already noticed, it is following Ext.P2
judgment of this court that the Panchayat was required to
execute the agreement with the petitioner. In terms of the
schedule fixed in Ext.P1, by the time the agreement is
executed, the bidder should have paid 50% of the amount
due. If that be so, I cannot find fault with the Panchayat in
directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount due.
7. Similar is the case with the direction to execute the
agreement on a stamp paper worth 5% of the contract
value, which also cannot be objected in the light of clause
8 of Ext.P1.
On the whole, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no
arbitrariness on the part of the Panchayat warranting
interference.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.23157/2008 7