IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10792 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.KUNJEENPILLA, PLAMATTATHU HOUSE, PARAPPURAM P.O., KIZHAKKUMBHAGHAM VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SREEMOOLANAGARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MARAMPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. K.K.HASSAINAR, MUNDETH HOUSE, MUDIKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ALUVA TALUK. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R2 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R2 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) FOR R2 SRI.MATHEW SUNNY FOR R2 SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH , SC, FOR R1 SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU FOR R1 SRI.JAGAN GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.P.G.PRAMOD FOR R1 SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL FOR R1 SRI.K.A.JALEEL FOR R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI FOR R3 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.10792/2010-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petitioner was operating Thekkekovilakam- Manjapetty ferry which comes within the jurisdiction of the first and second respondent Panchayats. He was running the ferry for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 for a tender amount of Rs.10,52,000/-. The challenge is against Exts.P9 tender notification issued by the second respondent-Panchayat as well as the communication Ext.P14 of the same Panchayat informing the reasons for not allowing the petitioner to participate in the said tender. 2. It is mainly contended that the petitioner was expecting an extension in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P13 Judgment. He wanted an extension in the light of the fact that the conduct of the ferry had caused some loss to him. 3. Respondent Nos.2 and 6 have filed counter affidavits in the matter. 4. During the course of argument, it was pointed out by Adv.Shri T.A.Shaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that various irregularities and illegalities have been committed by the second respondent-Panchayat in conducting the auction and the entire proceedings were W.P.(C). No.10792/2010 -:2:- finalised only to favour the present successful contractor, namely, the sixth respondent. These allegations are totally denied by the learned counsel for the second respondent-Panchayat and the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent. 5. Various disputes have been raised by the parties, including the question whether the documents produced by the respective parties satisfy the requirements of the tender notification. The learned counsel for the second respondent-Panchayat and the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that the petitioner was not having the required certificates and that lead to the refusal to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner also maintains that the sixth respondent is not owning a boat and it is only under an agreement with its owner that he is allowed to operate the ferry. The crucial question is whether the respective parties were having the required certificates issued by the Chief Inspector of Boats, Ernakulam as well as the authority under Cochin Canals and Ferries Act. 6. The issue will have to be gone into by any of the statutory authorities. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of approaching the fourth respondent in the matter. If the W.P.(C). No.10792/2010 -:3:- petitioner files an appropriate representation before the fourth respondent with regard to the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the auction by the second respondent- Panchayat, along with a copy of this Judgment, within a period of ten days, the fourth respondent will pass appropriate orders within a period of one month, after conducting due enquiry and after calling for records maintained by the second respondent-Panchayat, and after giving opportunity to all the parties to submit their written statements in the matter also. The conduct of the ferry by the sixth respondent in the meanwhile will be subject to the final decision to be taken by the fourth respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms