IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2855 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.M.SIDHIK, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 52 YEARS KAKKADAMKULAM HOUSE, MARKET PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 686 673. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANAMUDI FOREST DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUNNAR WHO IS ALSO THE WILDLIFE WARDEN,MUNNAR. 3. SIDHIQUE,S/O.HASSAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NOW RESIDING AT FIZAL MANZIL, MUVATTUPUZHA KIZHAKKE KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA ,FORMERLY RESIDING AT PADINJAREVATTATHIL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA , PIN 686661. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.2855 OF 2011(F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In response to Ext.P1, petitioner submitted his tenders for the purchase of the vehicles mentioned therein. According to him, his offer was the highest and the same was accepted. It is stated that subsequently, by Ext.P2 he was informed that, in view of a higher post offer received from the 3rd respondent, petitioner's offer was cancelled and the amount deposited by him is returned. It is aggrieved by the above that the writ petition has been filed. 2. Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the Government Pleader as in all other cases, the method adopted by the respondent was initially to resort to auction followed by tender and post offer. It is stated that once that process is completed, the respondents will also resort to re-auction and re-tender and among the above, the least offer received is accepted. According to the Government Pleader in the auction nobody had made a minimum required offer and therefore tender procedure was resorted by Ext.P1. It is stated that in response to Ext.P1 many offers were received and that WPC.No.2855 /2011 :2 : the offer made by the petitioner was the highest. According to him, after the tender process, among the post offers that were received, the offer received from the 3rd respondent was higher than that of the petitioner. It is stated that it was therefore that by Ext.P2 the petitioner was informed that the offer made by him was not accepted. Government Pleader further submits that after receiving the post offers, respondents have already scheduled a re-auction and re-tender on 23.2.2011. It is submitted that depending upon the offers to be received, necessary steps in the matter will be taken. 3. 4It is for the respondents to decide in what least manner the vehicle should be sold and so long as the method so adopted is not arbitrary or mala fide, it is not for this court to interfere. If in that process, the respondents have adopted various methods to fetch maximum value for the vehicles, this court cannot hold that the respondents have committed any illegality. In this case petitioner could not show that the steps taken by the respondents are vitiated for arbitrariness or mala fides. Further even accepting the case pleaded by the petitioner, it cannot be said that any of his legal rights are affected. WPC.No.2855 /2011 :3 : Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/