High Court Kerala High Court

Rajiv Gandhi Study Centre vs The Thrissur Municipal … on 18 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Rajiv Gandhi Study Centre vs The Thrissur Municipal … on 18 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 15374 of 2002(E)


1. RAJIV GANDHI STUDY CENTRE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. UNNIKRISHNAN, EACHARATH, ROOM NO.318,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :18/08/2008

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
               = = =O.P.=No.=15374=OF = = = = = =
                                         2002 E
                      =    =    = =    =


               Dated this the 18h day of August 2008


                           J U D G M E N T

The challenge in this original petition is against Ext. P2, a

decision taken by the 1st respondent, reducing the rental payable by

the 3rd respondent, by its decision No. 302/98.

2. According to the petitioner, for letting out rooms belonging

to the Corporation tenders were invited and in the tender process

the offer made by the 3rd respondent being the highest, was

accepted by the 1st respondent. It is stated that accordingly,

Rs.2605/- was fixed as the rental and on that basis Ext. P1 order of

allotment was also issued. Petitioner submits that subsequently, on

a representation made by the 3rd respondent, by Ext. P2 impugned

decision, the Corporation decided to reduce the rental payable.

3. Petitioner contends that having fixed the rental in a tender

process by accepting the highest bid, it is not open to the

Corporation to have reduced the same. According to the learned

O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002
-2-

counsel, this decision is vitiated by malafides in as much as the 3rd

respondent is a Councillor. It is also contended that at reduced

rate, the 3rd respondent is continuing occupation, and that too for

an indefinite period.

4. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned decision for

more reasons that one. In my view, petitioner cannot style himself

as an aggrieved person for the reason that though the petitioner

makes a claim in the writ petition that they were also interested in

getting this room allotted to them, the fact remains that they had

not participated in the tender process.

5. That apart, it is also seen that the tender in question was

invited in 1997, the impugned decision was taken on 26.9.1998 and

the original petition was filed only on 10.6.2002. This long delay is

sought to be explained by the petitioner by making reference to Ext.

P3, a representation stated to have been made by them. In my

view, a representation, particularly a non-statutory one, does not

result in condonation of delay and even if such a representation is

filed that will not enable the petitioner to contend that the writ

petition was filed in time.

O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002
-3-

6. As far as the petitioner’s plea of malafides is concerned,

this is founded on the basis that the 3rd respondent was a Councillor

of the 1st respondent. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent

submitted that he was a Councillor from 2000 and that the period

also has expired. Though the petitioner has not succeeded in

establishing any malafides as such, still facts remain that neither in

1997 nor in 1998 when the impugned decision was taken, the 3rd

respondent was a Councillor. Therefore, this contention has no

factual basis.

7. Yet another plea raised by the petitioner is regarding the

indefinite continuance of the 3rd respondent. This plea again is of

no substance. Going by their own statement, petitioner was also

aspiring for allotment of the room. Petitioner has no case that the

permit to the 3rd respondent to continue in the room indefinitely is

granted against the tender conditions.

8. The right of continuance of the 3rd respondent is governed

by the terms of the tender and the contract that was entered into

between the parties. However, when the tender permitted such

continuance, the petitioner cannot take objection to the same.

O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002
-4-

9. For all these reasons I am not inclined to entertain the

original petition.

Original petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-

O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002
-5-

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = =
O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002 E
= = = = = = = = = = = =

J U D G M E N T

18-8-2008.