IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11723 of 2009(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.T.NAZIMUDEEN, S/O.USMAN, RESIDING AT AMARAMBATH THAZHETHODI HOUSE, P.O.ULLANAM NORTH, PARAPPANANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTIRCT. BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE OFFICER, THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED: 3. P.T. SUNIL, POTTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, PONNUKKARA, PUTHUR, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/07/2009 IN I.A. NO. 6240/2009. R1 & R2 BY MR. K.B. MOHANDAS, S.C, ADDL.R3 BY MR. P.V. SREENIVASAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11723/2009-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 19/04/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. MARCH, 2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 28/02/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 28/02/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMON TENDER NOTIFICATION DTD. 14/01/2009. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. NIL. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16/02/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER PUBLICATION IN DESABHIMANI DAILY DD. 17/01/09 INVITING TENDERS TO PURCHASE THE LICENSE TO CONDUCT THE CANTEEN AT NORTH BUS STAND, THRISSUR. EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION NO. R9-123/09 DTD. 14/01/2009 CONTAINING ALL DETAILS OF THE TENDER AND CONDITIONS OF TENDER THAT WAS AVAILABLE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. R9 (R14) 5064/02 DTD. 01/04/09. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF POSTING DTD. 23/01/09 FOR SENDING THE TENDER NOTIFICATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14/06/07 IN W.P.(C).NO.15077/07 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22/06/07 IN W.A. 1451/07 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE AGENDA AND MINUTES OF THE MEETING DTD. 21/03/09 OF THRISSUR CORPORATION COUNCIL. EXT.R1.G: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. R9-123-09 DTD. 26/03/09 INTIMATING THE DECISION NO.6 DTD. 21/03/09 OF CORPORATION COUNCIL. EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 26/03/09 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE ADDL.R3. EXT.R3.B: COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENTS PAID BY THE ADDL.R3. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11723 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner who was the licensee of the immediately preceding year to run the canteen in the Vadakkechira bus stand of the Thrissur Corporation challenges the action taken to auction out the licence to run that canteen. He says that Ext.P5 notice was published only in one Malayalam daily and was not properly carried, thereby, preventing the petitioner from participating in the auction. This contention, at the first blush, might have impressed this Court having regard to the fact that the activities of the Corporation should be fair and reasonable. 2.While the petitioner pleads in para 2 of the writ petition that he had been watching prominent dailies having circulation in Thrissur, including Deshabhimani, but did not see any tender notification, the first respondent corporation has placed on record Ext.R1, which shows that the advertisement was given WPC.11723/09 Page numbers in Deshabhimani newspaper dated 17.1.2009 and that the persons desirous of taking any of the contracts mentioned therein could go to the corporation office and find out from its notice board, the further details. 3.The period of the petitioner's contract expired on 18.4.2009. Para 13 of the counter affidavit of the first respondent indicates that there were different litigations. The first respondent has also contended that Ext.R1(c) evidences that the petitioner was issued a notice under certificate of posting. These materials, at any rate, tend to indicate that a person who had been conducting the canteen, had he been vigilant, would have inexcusably known about the auction and there is no reason for the writ court to interfere merely on the ground that the notice of invitation of tenders were not publicized as expected by the petitioner. WPC.11723/09 Page numbers 4.The successful bidder has remitted amounts, however, could not commence the activity only by reason of the interim order in force. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to sustain the writ petition. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the corporation to consider any request of the additional respondent for remission of the total payables, if found necessary, having regard to the fact that by the force of the interim order, he had been prevented from running the canteen. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.24/7.