IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9170 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.ASHARAF,S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AMINA MANZIL, MUZAVARI KUNNU,PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. NAVAZ,S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AMINA MANZIL, MUZAVARI KUNNU,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. NIZAM,S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AMINA MANZIL, MUZAVARI KUNNU,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY,PUNALUR POST,KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) SC SRI.B. KRISHNAMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).9170/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 auction notice, various stalls belonging to the respondent Municipality were proposed to be auctioned on 3.3.2010. In respect of meat stall Nos.2, 3 and 4, petitioners participated in the auction and apparently their bid was the highest. According to the petitioners, auction was settled in their favour and without any intimation, Municipality was proceeding to re-auction the aforesaid stalls. It is with that grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality informs that the amount offered by the petitioners was found to be very low. Therefore, the Municipal Council did not confirm the auction in favour of the petitioners and on the other hand, decided to conduct re-auction. In respect of stall Nos.2, 3 and 4, the amount fetched in the re-auction is far higher than what was offered by the petitioners on 3.3.2010. W.P.(C).9170/10 2 3. Petitioners have nothing to show that the auction was confirmed in their favour. If auction was not confirmed and the Municipality found that the amounts offered by the petitioners were unsatisfactory, it is always open to the Municipality to re- auction the stalls and this is what the Municipality has done in this case. In the light of what is disclosed from the submission made on behalf of the Municipality, I do not find any irregularity in the re-auction that was conducted. The writ petition fails and it is only to be dismissed. I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs