IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2855 of 2011(F)
1. K.M.SIDHIK, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 52 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
3. SIDHIQUE,S/O.HASSAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
For Petitioner :SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.2855 OF 2011(F)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
In response to Ext.P1, petitioner submitted his tenders for
the purchase of the vehicles mentioned therein. According to him,
his offer was the highest and the same was accepted. It is stated
that subsequently, by Ext.P2 he was informed that, in view of a
higher post offer received from the 3rd respondent, petitioner’s
offer was cancelled and the amount deposited by him is returned.
It is aggrieved by the above that the writ petition has been filed.
2. Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the
matter. According to the Government Pleader as in all other
cases, the method adopted by the respondent was initially to
resort to auction followed by tender and post offer. It is stated
that once that process is completed, the respondents will also
resort to re-auction and re-tender and among the above, the least
offer received is accepted. According to the Government Pleader
in the auction nobody had made a minimum required offer and
therefore tender procedure was resorted by Ext.P1. It is stated
that in response to Ext.P1 many offers were received and that
WPC.No.2855 /2011
:2 :
the offer made by the petitioner was the highest. According to
him, after the tender process, among the post offers that were
received, the offer received from the 3rd respondent was higher
than that of the petitioner. It is stated that it was therefore that by
Ext.P2 the petitioner was informed that the offer made by him
was not accepted. Government Pleader further submits that after
receiving the post offers, respondents have already scheduled a
re-auction and re-tender on 23.2.2011. It is submitted that
depending upon the offers to be received, necessary steps in the
matter will be taken.
3. 4It is for the respondents to decide in what least
manner the vehicle should be sold and so long as the method so
adopted is not arbitrary or mala fide, it is not for this court to
interfere. If in that process, the respondents have adopted various
methods to fetch maximum value for the vehicles, this court
cannot hold that the respondents have committed any illegality.
In this case petitioner could not show that the steps taken by the
respondents are vitiated for arbitrariness or mala fides. Further
even accepting the case pleaded by the petitioner, it cannot be
said that any of his legal rights are affected.
WPC.No.2855 /2011
:3 :
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/