IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35289 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VIJI.P.ISSAC,CHAIRMAN,THE INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL & SPIRITUAL ACADEMY,PONNAL HOUSE, OORAMANA.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686B 730. BY ADVS. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY SRI.T.SANJAY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,SANTHI NAGAR,TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. THE REGIONAL ENGINEER,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,REGIONAL OFFICE,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR,TRIVANDRUM-695001. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. A. JAYASANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35289 of 2010 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T In 2007, the Kerala State Housing Board invited tenders for disposal of a commercial building. Petitioner's offer of ` 4.10 crores was the highest and was accepted. However, against the aforesaid proceedings, an earlier bidder filed W.P.(C) No.1982/2007. That writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 04-01-2008. W.A.No.225/2008 filed against that judgment was also dismissed by Ext.P9 judgment rendered on 02-03-2010. During this period, on account of the interim orders passed by this Court, nothing further was done by the Housing Board. 2. Subsequently, Ext.P10 notice was issued to the petitioner on 27-09-2010, calling upon him to remit the bid amount within thirty days. After the expiry of the period for payment specified in Ext.P10, petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation dated 02-11-2010, requesting that the bid W.P.(C) No.35289/10 : 2 : amount be reduced to ` 3.5 crores and that he be given reasonable time for making the deposit. To this, the Housing Board responded by Ext.P12 letter dated 10-11-2010, requiring the petitioner to remit the amount before 3 PM on 25-11-2010 and informing him that on default, the offer made by the Housing Board will be treated as cancelled. It is therefore this writ petition is filed. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though initially the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the bid amount, having regard to the long lapse of time, he has to raise the amount and for that purpose, he requires time. It is on that basis, extension of time is sought for. I heard the Standing Counsel for the Board, who seriously objected to this request. 4. The petitioner, who was a party to the writ petition and the writ appeal, was well aware of the termination of the proceedings by Ext.P9 judgment rendered on 02-03-2010. Therefore, it is not true that the petitioner was taken by surprise when he received Ext.P10 issued on 27-09-2010. W.P.(C) No.35289/10 : 3 : That apart, when the writ appeal was dismissed on 02-03- 2010, then itself the Board could have asked for payment, which was not done. Petitioner also did not offer to make payment and demanded delivery of the property also. Therefore, he had more than six months time to raise finance. In my view, petitioner has already enjoyed more than reasonable time for making payment of the bid amount. That apart, Ext.P11 order also shows that in this representation, petitioner was trying to get reduction in the bid amount and thus was making a fresh counter offer. In any case, these are contractual matters which are to be governed by agreement of parties and cannot be interfered by a writ court, particularly in the absence of any arbitrariness or malafides. 5. In such circumstances, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with this matter. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks