IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29199 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CIAL SHOP OWNERS & STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION, REGISTRATION NO.ER 842/04, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COCHIN AIRPORT P.O., NEDUMBASSERY-683111, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.P.V.JOSE, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 53 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEDUMBASSERY, KOCHI-683 111. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, NEDUMBASSERY, KOCHI-683 111. 3. THE MANAGER (COMMERCIAL), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, NEDUMBASSERY, KOCHI-683 111. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. FOR R1-3 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN I AIRPORT LT FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29199 OF 2010(Y) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Association of the licensees of shop rooms in the premises of the Cochin International Air Port. 2. In this writ petition, though they challenge Ext.P5, they aremainly aggrieved by the minimum licence fee specified in clause 2.9. When the writ petition was considered by this court on 23.9.2010, this court passed an interim order enabling the members of the petitioner association to make their offers. 3. From the materials now produced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, it would appear that several responses were received in pursuance to Ext.P5 tender notice which were much more than the minimum licence fee specified in clause 2.9 of Ext.P5. Being a commercial venture and also in the light of the offers received by the respondents this court cannot find anything objectionable in the minimum licence fee prescribed by the first respondent in Ext.P5. Therefore challenge against minimum licence fee prescribed in Ext.P5 has to fail. WPC.No. 29199/2010 :2 : However, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the existing occupants will be given an opportunity to make revised bids, matching their offer with the highest offer, which the company has received in response to Ext.P5. In my view that is a very reasonable stand adopted by the first respondent and therefore leaving it open to the members of the petitioner to take advantage of this offer, the writ petition is disposed of . (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/