IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31971 of 2010(V)
1. GEE KAY HYGIENICS PRIVATE LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WL),
For Petitioner :SRI.E.G.GORDEN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :20/10/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.31971 OF 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
The petitioner says that he is involved in packing drinking
water. He challenges Ext.P1 notification issued by the
Travancore Devaswom Board inviting expression of interest for
sale of drinking water in Sannidhanan and Pampa during the
ensuing Sabarimala season. By order dated 12.10.2010 in
DBA.116/10, we have granted approval for the contract pursuant
to the said invitation. Now, the writ petition in hand is filed
contending that Ext.P1 was not published in any edition of Indian
Express other than its Madras Edition. On this plea, it was
pointed out that the petitioner, an operator from Kerala, did not
see that advertisement. We recalled that even the affidavit in
DBA.116/10 contains the averment of the TDB that the
advertisement was published in different editions. We,
WPC.31971/10
2
therefore, have the judges’ papers of DBA.116/10 before us. We
see that there is averment by TDB that the advertisement was
published in all Indian Editions of Indian Express. Today,
learned counsel for the TDB has placed before us an invoice of
payment of expenses towards express publications for all Indian
editions in relation to the advertisement in question. Hence, the
ground urged before us and considered by us today fails.
Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner
says that though Ext.P1 does not proceed to give exclusive
vending rights to the successful tenderer, Ext.P2 has been issued
by the TDB essentially granting exclusive vending rights and this
amounts to modulation or change in the terms of the offer and
hence there should be re-tender. He relies on the judgment of
this Court in Mundakkayam Sadasivan and Another v.
G.C.D.A. and Others [2004(2) KLJ 595] in support of this
contention. We are clear in our mind that the law is well settled,
i.e., to the effect that the terms of an invitation for offers would
not be tinkered in such a way, after its issuance, that it changes
WPC.31971/10
3
the terms of the invitation and if it does change the terms of the
invitation, there has to be a re-invitation. We do not find any
such situation arising in the case in hand. Firstly, the clause
complained of from Ext.P2 is that the TDB will ensure that no
other packaged water is sold through the licensed commercial
outlets at Pampa along the trekking routes and at Sannidhanam.
Such clause also provides that pilgrims may either carry their
own water bottles of any quality or brand for their personal use.
Therefore, no pilgrim can make out a case of any inconvenience
owing to Ext.P2. There cannot be any vending and any hawking
and sale or any other commercial activity in Sabarimala, Pampa
and adjacent places. The reasons for such regulation are
multifarious. The writ petitioner is admittedly no one who has an
authorised commercial outlet at Pampa or at Sannidhanam or
aside the trekking route from Pampa to Sannidhanam. He
cannot, therefore, make a complaint that the clause relating to
exclusiveness in Ext.P2 works against his interest. On this
ground also, the writ petition fails.
WPC.31971/10
4
No other ground is urged before us. In the result, the writ
petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN,
Judge.
kkb.21/10.