IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 32084 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.P.SARASAN, MEKKEVELIYIL HOUSE NADAKKAVU, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BABU KANIYAMPALLIL HOUSE, NETTOOR, MARADU. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, KOCHI. 3. SECRETARY MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MARADU. BY ADVS. MR.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R1 MR.S.CHANDRASENAN FOR R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32084/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE IN DESHABHIMANI NES PAPER DT. 16.10.08 P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DT. 25.10.08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.11138 DT. 25.10.08 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. R1(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS V.GIRI, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.32084 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Auction was conducted by the Maradu Grama Panchayat in relation to the right to conduct cemetery and its allied facilities. Auction was held on 23.10.2008. According to the petitioner, he had submitted a tender quoting an amount of Rs.25,111/- and the first respondent quoted Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner contends that since the amount quoted by the petitioner in the tender was clearly higher than the amount quoted by the first respondent, the auction should have been confirmed in his name. But, it was not so done and the right was confirmed in favour of the first respondent, which has been challenged in this Writ Petition. Respondents 1 and 3 have filed separate counter affidavits. 2. It is contended by the Panchayat that the petitioner had purchased a demand draft for the EMD which were kept inside the sealed cover along with the quotation. He could not produce even a copy of the demand draft for verification at the WP(C).32084/08 2 time of auction. The auction was conducted and the first respondent bid the auction for an amount of Rs.30,500/-, which was higher than the amount quoted by the petitioner and therefore the bidder, first respondent, was granted the right to conduct the cemetery and its allied facilities. It is further contended that the sealed cover put up by the petitioner was opened only to facilitate the petitioner to participate in the auction. I do not propose to go into the contentions regarding the alleged irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Panchayat. Further, since the period of grant of right expires by 31.3.2009, I am not inclined to issue any direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P2. It is submitted that auction has been conducted for the period subsequent to 31.3.2009 also. I make it clear that the grant of right in favour of the first respondent for the period ending 31.3.2009 shall not by itself result in any additional privilege to the first respondent to conduct cemetery in the Maradu Grama Panchayat. The right to conduct cemetery and its allied WP(C).32084/08 3 facilities in the Maradu Grama Panchayat for the period subsequent to 31.3.2009 shall be determined in the auction conducted/to be conducted by the Panchayat. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, JUDGE vgs.