IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28564 of 2008(A)
1. C.RAFEEQ, S/O KUTTIYALI, AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. P.R. ABOOBACKER, S/O KHADER, AGED
Vs
1. KUTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN, KUTHUPARAMBA
3. K.SATHEESH KUMAR, PWD CONTRACTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.28564 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners claim that the petitioners and others were
occupying shop rooms and conducting business in a shopping complex
owned by the 1st respondent Municipality. There was some litigation
regarding their eviction. The petitioners contend that ultimately an
agreement was reached between the petitioners and others, and the
Municipality to the effect that they would vacate the rooms on
condition that the Municipality would reconstruct the building and allot
shop rooms to the petitioners in the reconstructed building. According
to the petitioners, all the erstwhile occupiers of shop rooms had been
evicted from the premises in question pursuant to that agreement. The
grievance of the petitioners is that the Municipality has not taken any
steps to re-construct the building as undertaken by them. The
petitioners, therefore, seek the following relief:
“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to call for the records and to issue a writ of mandamus directing
or compelling the Municipality to reconstruct the shop building as decision
as per Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible and also allot them to the
earlier occupants like the petitioners.”
2. The contention fo the Municipality is that they had taken
appropriate steps to re-construct the building and contract for the
same was awarded to the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent
has not taken any steps to construct the building as per the contract
which prompted the Municipality to terminate the contract at the risk
2
and costs of the contractor. A suit was filed, interim orders in which
were taken in appeal before the District Court and, the District Court
has made some observations because of which the Municipality is not
in a position to continue the construction, is the sand of the
Municipality.
3. The 3rd respondent, viz., K.Satheesh Kumar, the
contractor, has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition, in which he
has stated that although his suit challenging the termination of
contract at his risk and costs is pending, he has no objection in the
Municipality entrusting the work to any other person.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
with the following directions:
In view of the statement made by the 3rd respondent in the
counter affidavit (in the counter affidavit he has referred to himself as
2nd respondent wrongly), there is nothing standing in the way of the
Municipality taking further steps to award the contract to another
person. Therefore, if the person who has quoted the next lowest rate
among the tenderers who had submitted tenders is interested in the
work, the 1st respondent shall award the contract to him and take all
steps to start the construction immediately. If the next person is not
willing to undertake the work, the 1st respondent shall invite fresh
tenders and finalise the tenders within two months from the date of
3
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If any of the former shop
keepers who have undertaken to vacate the shop rooms are still in
possession, respondents 1 and 2 shall take steps to evict them by
resort to the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and rules.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge