IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9932 of 2007(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.M.MOHAMMED BASHEER, MADEENA MANZIL, ANDROTH, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADVS. MR.N.NAGARESH, MR.BINU PAUL. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELE), ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY, U.T.L., MINICOY, LAKSHADWEEP. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY, U.T.L., KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. 3. ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.MR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9932/2007 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE F.NO.11/16/2004-ELE (M)/893 DTD. 21/11/2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF NOTICE F.NO.11/16/2004-ELE(M)/265 DTD.11/10/2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: CIOYP OF THE QUOTATION DTD. 11/10/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.11/16/2004-ELE(M) DTD. 2/01/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/03/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE F.NO.11/16/2004-ELE (MCY)/190 DTD. 19/03/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE F.NO.11/16/2004 – ELE (M)/191 DTD. 19/03/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE F.NO.11/16/2004-ELE(M)312 DTD.26/04/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF NOTICE NO.36/1/2007/KLP/AEA DTD. 14/11/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10: THE LIST OF 244 ARTICLES AUCTIONED IN PURSUANCE OF EXT.P9. P11: COPY OF NOTICE F.NO.36/1/2007/KLP/AEA DTD. 22/12/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.11/16/2004 – ELE (M)/701 DTD.23/08/05 WITH COPIES OF FORM GFR-17 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R1(B): COPY OF THE ORDER F NO.30/2/2002 – ELE/AC-II/3305 DTD.17/10/05 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Kss ..2/- ..2..... WPC.NO.9932/2007 G R1(C): COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AUCTION NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R1(D): COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICES BEARING F NO.11/16/92-ELE(M) 212 & 396 DTD.23/04/04 AND 30/04/05 RESPECTIVELY. R1(E): COPY OF THE MESSAGE F NO.11/16/2004-ELE (M)/3 DTD. 6/01/06 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R1(F): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/08/06 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R1(G): COPY OF THE MESSAGE F NO.30/2/2002-ELE/AC-II/2458 DTD. 25/09/06. R1(H): COPY OF THE ORIGINAL NOTICE DTD.11/10/06 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND RECEIVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R1(I): COPY OF THE MESSAGE DTD.10/11/06 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING FOR APPROVAL. R1(J): COPY OF THE MESSAGE BEARING F NO.30/2/2002 – ELE/AC-II/ 2821 DTD. 20/11/06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R1(K): COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM BEARING F.NO.30/2/2002- ELE/AC-II/3050 DTD. 11/12/06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 9932 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd June, 2009. J U D G M E N T On 21-11-2005, the respondents invited tenders for sale of certain scrap items fixing the upset price as Rs.8,000/- . The petitioner quoted Rs. 50,500/-. Two others quoted Rs. 4,50,000/- and 4,35,000/-. Those higher bidders did not turn up to take delivery and the EMDs deposited by them were forfeited. The scarp was again put to auction on 10-11-2006 excluding some items, which, according to the petitioner, were very valuable items, but enhancing the upset price to Rs.20,000/-. Ten persons participated in the auction. The petitioner quoted Rs. 30,000/- which was the highest. However, respondents 1 and 2 cancelled the auction and issued fresh notification for re- auction. The petitioner is challenging the said re-auction by Ext. P6, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records leading to Exts.P6 and P7 and set aside the same issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order. (ii) direct the 1st respondent to confirm the auction/quotation held on 10-11-2006 in favour of the petitioner he being the highest bidder and deliver the unserviceable items notified in Ext. P 2 to the petitioner forthwith accepting the bid amount from the petitioner by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order.” The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have notified re-auction only because the auction did not go in favour of persons of their choice. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to them, in the first auction, one of the bidder who quoted Rs. 4.50 lakhs and defaulted was none other than the petitioner's father. According to them, considering the fact that earlier two W.P.C. No. 9932/07 -: 2 :- persons quoted above Rs. 4 lakhs led them to suspect that the price quoted by the petitioner is not a reasonable price and therefore they had decided to re-auction the scrap. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner has no case that his bid has been finally accepted. That being so, there is no concluded contract which the petitioner can enforce. No right has emanated from the proceedings to the petitioner. When a Government authority conducts an auction and decides not to accept the highest bid on the ground that they are not satisfied with the price quoted, the petitioner can validly challenge the same only if he proves by cogent material that the decision taken by the authority is tainted by mala fides or extraneous considerations. Although the petitioner alleges that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 is because persons of their choice did not succeed in the auction, no names are mentioned in the writ petition. Further, no material is placed before me to prove mala fides. In fact, nobody is impleaded in his personal capacity as a respondent, without which no allegation of mala fides can be accepted. As such, in so far as the petitioner has not acquired any right from the proceedings , he cannot validly challenge the re-notification for the re- auction. 5. At the time of admission, this Court had granted an interim stay of confirmation of offers received pursuant to Ext. P6 re-auction. It is now submitted by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that in view of that order, the auction proceedings were not proceeded with. It is submitted that fresh proceedings for re-auction would be initiated and concluded within a period of six weeks. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to issue a fresh notification inviting offers and complete the procedure for sale of the W.P.C. No. 9932/07 -: 3 :- scrap as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the petitioner would be free to participate in the said re-auction. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/