IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 3583 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHERIFF NAZIMUDEEN, S/O.SHERIEF, T.C.41/2606, 'SHA MANZIL', MANAKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 019. BY ADV. SRI.D.PEETHAMBARAN SRI.PRASAD GANDHI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SALES DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPOT OFFICER, GOVERNMENT TIMBER DEPOT, ACHANKOVIL. R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M. POULOSE (FORESTS) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 3583 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that by Exts.P4 & P5 he has been asked to pay the entire purchase price pursuant to a tender for purchase of forest timber, which has been rejected on technical grounds. According to him, he participated in a tender proceedings as well as in proceedings for spot auction. The tender was refused and spot auction was confirmed in his name. Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner confirming his tender and also spot auction. Petitioner would contend that once tender is rejected, the same cannot be confirmed again. Therefore Exts.P4 & P5 are bad in law and all proceedings pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed. 2. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent along with which the 2nd respondent has produced Exts.R2 (b) & R2 (c) letters received from the petitioner seeking W.P.(C)No. 3583 of 2010 -2- extension of time to pay for the timber, for which tender has been confirmed in his name. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that, the contentions of the petitioner are totally devoid of any merits since he himself asked for time to pay the amount as per the tender confirmed in his name. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit producing Ext.P6, which according to the petitioner would show that his tender has been rejected since certain columns therein were not filled up properly. The learned Government Pleader would explain the same showing that, that endorsement was at 4.10 p.m. and immediately thereafter at 4.30 p.m., the authority decided to consider the petitioner's tender in view of the higher amount quoted by the petitioner disregarding the technical flaw in view of the fact that the corresponding column regarding the amount in figures is properly filled up. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of opinion that, the petitioner has not approached this W.P.(C)No. 3583 of 2010 -3- court with clean hands. He has suppressed Exts.R2 (b) & R2 (c) from this court and came with a writ petition stating that, a tender which was rejected was later confirmed in his name without notice to him. Exts.R2 (b) & R2 (c) do not even contain a whisper about such a contention. The petitioner does not dispute that he had issued Exts.R2 (b) & R2 (c). From the two endorsements in Ext.P6, it is clear that although initially an objection was raised about the non-filling up of a column, immediately thereafter, the authority decided to accept the same. I find that the endorsement relied on by the petitioner was at 4.10 p.m. and the later endorsement was at 4.30 p.m. Petitioner was very well aware of this fact which is evidenced from Exts. R2 (b) & R2 (c), since in Exts. R2 (b) & R2 (c) he has no such objections whatsoever. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I do so. In view of the fact that, the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this court and approached this court with unclean hands, the petitioner shall pay costs. Therefore the petitioner shall pay W.P.(C)No. 3583 of 2010 -4- Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as exemplary costs to the respondents within one month from today. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/