IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 225 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1982/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ DR. T.P.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. SRI. T.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 43, GURUPRIYA, CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-33. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH SRI.R.JAYACHANDRAN SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOUSING (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. * 4. VIJI PONNAL, PONNAL VILAS, CMS ROAD, KOTTAYAM. (R4 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DT. 30.9.2009 IN I.A.NO.937 OF 2009) BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, FOR R2 & 3 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.K.P.JOSE PIOUS SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM FOR R2 & 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MRS.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, Ag.C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.A.No.225 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for a direction to the Housing Board to sell the building at the price quoted by him. Housing Board which constructed the building invited tenders for sale of the same in the year 2005. Appellant quoted a little over Rs.1 Crore which was the higher tender between the two offers. However, the upset price fixed for the building was above Rs.1 Crore 30 lakhs. Even though Housing Board decided to sell the building to the appellant, it required the approval from the Government and the matter was referred to the Government for approval. When the Government noticed that there were only two tenderers and the higher bid was below the upset price fixed by the Housing Board, Government declined to approve the sale. Housing Board naturally was bound by the Government's decision, and W.A.No.225 of 2008 2 therefore, the tenders were cancelled. When the petitioner challenged the same before this Court, the learned Single Judge also found that the appellant has no vested right to get the property, which was tendered subject to approval by the Government. Since the tender was not accepted, sale deed could not be executed is the finding of the learned Single Judge. In fact, the appellant is compensated by the learned Single Judge by directing payment of 12% interest on the security deposit. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated entire contentions pressed before the learned Single Judge in the appeal also. 2. We have also heard the learned senior counsel, Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, appearing for the Housing Board, who submitted that subsequent to the cancellation of the tender, another tender was invited and the highest bid was for Rs.4.1 Crores, which is exactly around four times the offer made by the appellant. W.A.No.225 of 2008 3 3. We appreciate the sensible decision taken by the Government not to confirm the sale in favour of the appellant at a low price, because the market value which is reflected in the second tender was four times than the first tender. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed. Further, we do not want to deal with the situation arising on account of non performance, if any, of the contract by the subsequent tenderer, which is a matter to be dealt with, in accordance with the tender conditions by the Housing Board. We make it clear that if the property happens to be re-tendered again, the appellant will be free to apply for the same and his tender also will be considered along with others. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.