IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33217 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.RAJU, 'HARISREE', KIZHAKKENADA, ETTUMANOOR P.O., ETTUMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. BINEESHAN, GIRISH BHAVAN, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33217 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioner is stated to be a devotee. But he is not seeking any relief for himself or for the larger interest of the public. This writ petition is filed obviously for a direction to the Devaswom Board to confirm contract for Parking Fee Collection in favour of the third respondent. Why the third respondent has not come to the Court, if he has got any grievance in the matter? The petitioner cannot expose the cause of a private party by filing a public interest litigation. That apart, as per Annexure – A telegram, produced along with the statement of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the third respondent has already intimated the Board withdrawing his tender submitted on 7.11.2009. As such, no relief can be granted in this writ petition, as sought for. W.P.(C) No.33217 of 2009 2 2. In the statement filed for and on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board, they have stated that the tenders were opened and one tenderer had quoted over the minimum rate who also deposited the EMD, and that is the only tender which was received for an amount above the minimum quoted. In the case of third respondent, Sri.Binish, he made a subsequent offer and the same has also been considered. In the factual situation, the Commissioner had addressed a letter to one Sri.M.P.George informing him about the existence of the tender, asking him to execute the agreement and to deposit 50% of the bid amount. Therefore, we do not find anything illegal in the matter of awarding the contract. Further, if there is any procedural violation, that is always a matter for the usual audit to point out, at the time of filing the audit report. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.