Sri.Abdul Razzack vs The Secretary on 6 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27601 of 2010(A)


1. SRI.ABDUL RAZZACK,CHELAMBADAM HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,VYTHIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,VYTHIRI GRAMA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :06/09/2010

 O R D E R
                            P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
                           = = = = = = = = = = =
                            W.P.(C) 27601/2010
                          = = = = = = = = = = = =
         DATED THIS, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010.

                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the Vythiri

Grama Panchayath on 18.8.2010 as regards the right to run a tourist centre

established by the Panchayath. The petitioner was the highest bidder and

his bid was accepted subject to confirmation by the Committee of the

Panchayath. The Panchayat Committee is going to retender the right to run

the tourist centre as the monthly rent quoted is very low. Hence this writ

petition seeking the following reliefs:

i. Isue a writ of certiorari quashing
decision No. 126 of the second respondent to
conduct re-auction of the right to conduct
Lakkidi tourist centre.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
first respondent to confirm the auction held
on 18.8.2010 and direct them to execute the
agreement with the petitioner for running the
Lakkidi tourist centre.

2. Ext.P2, the auction diary disclosed that the Committee of the

Panchayat met on 27.6.2010 resolved to retender the right as it is of the

WP(C) 27601/2010 2

opinion that the amount fetched in the auction is low. In my opinion, the

mere fact that the petitioner has offered to pay Rs. 31,500/- per month is

not a reason to hold that the Committee of the Panchayat is bound to accept

the said offer and cannot go in for a re-auction. Ext.P2 discloses that the

petitioner’s offer was accepted only as provisional, subject to confirmation

by the Committee of the Panchayat. In my opinion, the petitioner has no

vested right to have the right to run the tourist centre given to him pursuant

to the auction. I find therefore, no grounds in this writ petition. The writ

petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

P.N. RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
knc/-