IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30290 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M. HARIHARAN, MARAKKARA, KAITHAKODY P.O., KOTTATHOOR, AYROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH, SMT.SHALEENA RAJAN, SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE OMBUDSMAN, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, SABARIMALA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, 695 001. BY ADV. MR.V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR. SC, TDB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 30290 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 SERIES: COPIES OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING REMITTANCE BID AMOUNT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05/11/2011 OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/11/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE DEVASWOM BOARD PRESIDENT AND DEVASWOM CO-ORDINATOR. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/11/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE DEVASWOM CO-ORDINATOR. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/11/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/11/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE BID SCHEDULE OF SHOPS FOR THE PERIOD 12/11/11 TO 11/11/12 (1187 ME). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.30290 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner bid in auction the right to run Hotel No.8 (H3) in Pamba Manalpuram. As per Ext.P7 schedule, the said shop room has an area of 20.40 x 36 mts. The Board thereafter came with the idea that, that should be reduced to 20.40 x 26.20 mts. This is under challenge on the ground that the modification is attempted to be made after the finalisation of the tender and after the petitioner has confirmed the bid in his favour. At the outset, we may point out that Ext.P7 kuthaka schedule does not reflect the presence of any lean-to Hotel No.8. But, looking at the plan, which is prepared for the purpose of the auction, Hotel No.8 is shown to have 20.40 x 26.20 mts. plus lean-to 21.70 x 4.80 mts. The learned counsel for TDB says that the plan showing the lay out in connection with the auction was published along with the kuthaka schedule. Even if there is conflict between the total extent of the permanent structure excluding the lean-to, we think, the larger interest that needs to be served is the requirement to provide wider way for the devotees who come in large numbers from Sannidhanam downwards and to ensure their smooth movement through different portions, including the rear of the Ganapathy Temple WP(C).No.30290/2011 2 at Pamba, to move to the Subramaniam Trust Pandal in Pamba. Having considered the plan placed by the TDB, we are sure that the attempt is only to provide larger space for the devotees to move. Movement of devotees and also volunteers, Police, Fire authorities etc. should be the first concern where large number of people congregate. The commercial interests of the petitioner do not outweigh the public need to provide larger space for movement of the devotees. On the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We leave it open to the petitioner to withdraw from the tender and take back the money which he has deposited, if he wishes so. Otherwise, as has been done by the auctioneer of Hotel No.7, which has also been trimmed down for the same reason, the petitioner has to accept the Board's suggestion regarding Hotel No.8 also. Obviously, if the petitioner does so and proceeds to have the activities of the Hotel, the Board will do the needful in terms of the contract. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/16.11.11