IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31263 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ R.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, "SASTHALAYAM", ERUMAKUZHI, NOORANAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 504. BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SRI.RAJEESH.K.G. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 2. SHRI.P.A.VARGHESE, PADINJARE PERAMBRA MANNIL, VAZHAMUTTAM EAST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 646. 3. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31263/2010 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF NOTIFICATION DTD. 20/09/2010 PUBLISHED BY R1. P2: COPY OF PRIZE LIST DTD. 20/09/2010 PUBLISHED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD PURSUANT TO EXT.P1 NOTIFICATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.31263 of 2010-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.As per Ext.P1, the Travancore Devaswom Board issued its conditions and special conditions for auctioning out different rights in relation to running of hotels, other stalls and also different other activities during the Sabarimala season in Pampa and Sannidhanam. At Sl.No.118 in Ext.P2 is Hotel No.6 in Pampa Manalpuram. When the question of that item was taken up, there was only one tender. That was by the petitioner. He had quoted Rs.11,32,799/-. As a prelude to that, WPC31263/10 -: 2 :- he had made initial deposit and thereafter, following the opening of the tender, he deposited the remaining amount also in the Dhanalakshmi Bank, the banker of TDB. It is stated that the challan was issued from the local office of the TDB. This was on 5.10.2010. 2.On 6.10.2010, TDB officials proceeded to re- auction the aforesaid hotel rights. The petitioner did not participate. That he was present in the hall where the re-auction was held is a disputed fact. The second respondent and three others bid in auction and the auction was confirmed in favour of the second respondent for Rs.33,51,000/-. He has paid amounts in terms of that and stands to say that the auction stands confirmed in his name. 3.While the petitioner says that the auction was confirmed earlier in his name and the re-auction was without cancelling the confirmed auction and further that he was not notified of any proposal WPC31263/10 -: 3 :- to cancel the confirmed auction or to hold re- auction, the TDB would take the stand that even when the petitioner was permitted to deposit the amount he was informed of the likelihood of a re- auction, particularly when the petitioner was the sole tenderer and the amounts generated was around 5% over and above the minimum amount fixed in terms of Ext.P2 and less than what was paid by the petitioner himself during the last year for the same hotel. We find from Ext.P1 that the confirmation of any particular tender or auction is itself dependent upon the absence of any valid objections. There is fair room, in our consideration, in clauses 5 and 6 of Ext.P1 that would enable the TDB to look into whether a particular auction is acceptable in the best interest of the Board and the devotees. Under such circumstances, even if there is a conflict between the parties on contentions as to whether the auction held on 5.10.2010 was concluded into a contract, we do not deem it appropriate to treat it as a justiciable issue in writ WPC31263/10 -: 4 :- jurisdiction since adjudication of that issue would necessarily require answering questions of facts which stand disputed and which are incapable of resolution without hearing evidence. 4.On the whole, if the re-auction had generated Rs.33,51,000/- as against Rs.11,32,799/- which amount was even lesser than the amount paid by the petitioner himself even during the previous year for the same hotel premises, we are of the view that public need and purpose is not sacrificed by the TDB in that regard. By saying so, we do not propose to affirm any action of the TDB adverse to the petitioner since the petitioner may have other adequate remedies to seek redressal of any injury recognizable on the basis of any legal right. 5.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere at the instance of the petitioner and grant any relief as sought for. WPC31263/10 -: 5 :- In the result, this writ petition fails. The same is dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Judge. Sha/2610