IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28564 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.RAFEEQ, S/O KUTTIYALI, AGED 32 YEARS, 4/331.KUTTUPARAMBA MARKET,. 2. P.R. ABOOBACKER, S/O KHADER, AGED 67 YEARS, 4/50, KUTHUPARAMBA MARKET. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KUTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. K.SATHEESH KUMAR, PWD CONTRACTOR, AMBIKALAYAM, CHELAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 571. ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1-2 SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN ADV.M.P.JAYANANDAN MADAYI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 28564/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.31342/06 OF THIS COURT. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DTD.22.12.06. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28564 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim that the petitioners and others were occupying shop rooms and conducting business in a shopping complex owned by the 1st respondent Municipality. There was some litigation regarding their eviction. The petitioners contend that ultimately an agreement was reached between the petitioners and others, and the Municipality to the effect that they would vacate the rooms on condition that the Municipality would reconstruct the building and allot shop rooms to the petitioners in the reconstructed building. According to the petitioners, all the erstwhile occupiers of shop rooms had been evicted from the premises in question pursuant to that agreement. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Municipality has not taken any steps to re-construct the building as undertaken by them. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following relief: “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records and to issue a writ of mandamus directing or compelling the Municipality to reconstruct the shop building as decision as per Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible and also allot them to the earlier occupants like the petitioners.” 2. The contention fo the Municipality is that they had taken appropriate steps to re-construct the building and contract for the same was awarded to the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent has not taken any steps to construct the building as per the contract which prompted the Municipality to terminate the contract at the risk 2 and costs of the contractor. A suit was filed, interim orders in which were taken in appeal before the District Court and, the District Court has made some observations because of which the Municipality is not in a position to continue the construction, is the sand of the Municipality. 3. The 3rd respondent, viz., K.Satheesh Kumar, the contractor, has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition, in which he has stated that although his suit challenging the termination of contract at his risk and costs is pending, he has no objection in the Municipality entrusting the work to any other person. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: In view of the statement made by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit (in the counter affidavit he has referred to himself as 2nd respondent wrongly), there is nothing standing in the way of the Municipality taking further steps to award the contract to another person. Therefore, if the person who has quoted the next lowest rate among the tenderers who had submitted tenders is interested in the work, the 1st respondent shall award the contract to him and take all steps to start the construction immediately. If the next person is not willing to undertake the work, the 1st respondent shall invite fresh tenders and finalise the tenders within two months from the date of 3 receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If any of the former shop keepers who have undertaken to vacate the shop rooms are still in possession, respondents 1 and 2 shall take steps to evict them by resort to the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and rules. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge