IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 15374 of 2002(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------------------- RAJIV GANDHI STUDY CENTRE, MANDALAM COMMITTEE, AYYANTHOLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, C.P.JOY, AGED 38, CHIRIYANKANDATH HOUSE, CIVIL LANE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, M.G.ROAD,THRISSUR. 3. UNNIKRISHNAN, EACHARATH, ROOM NO.318, KARSHAKA NAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, AYYANTHOLE GROUND, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION FOR R1 & R2 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH FOR R3 SRI.C.V.SHAJU FOR R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss O.P.NO.15374/2002 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT COUNCIL DECISION DTD. 26/06/97. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT DECISION TAKEN AS NO.302/98 DTD. 26/09/98. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER COMMITTEE TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DTD. 15/05/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002 E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18h day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this original petition is against Ext. P2, a decision taken by the 1st respondent, reducing the rental payable by the 3rd respondent, by its decision No. 302/98. 2. According to the petitioner, for letting out rooms belonging to the Corporation tenders were invited and in the tender process the offer made by the 3rd respondent being the highest, was accepted by the 1st respondent. It is stated that accordingly, Rs.2605/- was fixed as the rental and on that basis Ext. P1 order of allotment was also issued. Petitioner submits that subsequently, on a representation made by the 3rd respondent, by Ext. P2 impugned decision, the Corporation decided to reduce the rental payable. 3. Petitioner contends that having fixed the rental in a tender process by accepting the highest bid, it is not open to the Corporation to have reduced the same. According to the learned O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002 -2- counsel, this decision is vitiated by malafides in as much as the 3rd respondent is a Councillor. It is also contended that at reduced rate, the 3rd respondent is continuing occupation, and that too for an indefinite period. 4. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned decision for more reasons that one. In my view, petitioner cannot style himself as an aggrieved person for the reason that though the petitioner makes a claim in the writ petition that they were also interested in getting this room allotted to them, the fact remains that they had not participated in the tender process. 5. That apart, it is also seen that the tender in question was invited in 1997, the impugned decision was taken on 26.9.1998 and the original petition was filed only on 10.6.2002. This long delay is sought to be explained by the petitioner by making reference to Ext. P3, a representation stated to have been made by them. In my view, a representation, particularly a non-statutory one, does not result in condonation of delay and even if such a representation is filed that will not enable the petitioner to contend that the writ petition was filed in time. O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002 -3- 6. As far as the petitioner's plea of malafides is concerned, this is founded on the basis that the 3rd respondent was a Councillor of the 1st respondent. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that he was a Councillor from 2000 and that the period also has expired. Though the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing any malafides as such, still facts remain that neither in 1997 nor in 1998 when the impugned decision was taken, the 3rd respondent was a Councillor. Therefore, this contention has no factual basis. 7. Yet another plea raised by the petitioner is regarding the indefinite continuance of the 3rd respondent. This plea again is of no substance. Going by their own statement, petitioner was also aspiring for allotment of the room. Petitioner has no case that the permit to the 3rd respondent to continue in the room indefinitely is granted against the tender conditions. 8. The right of continuance of the 3rd respondent is governed by the terms of the tender and the contract that was entered into between the parties. However, when the tender permitted such continuance, the petitioner cannot take objection to the same. O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002 -4- 9. For all these reasons I am not inclined to entertain the original petition. Original petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/- O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002 -5- ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. No. 15374 OF 2002 E = = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 18-8-2008.