IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24768 of 2011(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.SREEKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KANAKKANAM KANDY HOUSE, PANNIYANKARA, P.O.KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, (CHAIRMAN, ARALAM FARMING CORPORATION)(KERALA)LTD., COLLECTORATE, KANNUR - 2. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARALAM FARMING CORPORATION (KERALA) LTD., P.O. ARALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 704. 3. MARKETING MANAGER, ARALAM FARMING CORPORATION (KERALA) LTD., P.O. ARALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 704. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. V.K.KRISHNA MENON, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24768/2011 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.50,000/-. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,10,000/-. P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DTD. 17/08/2011 BEFORE THE SECRETARY. P5: PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS.). P6; COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 1/09/2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER SENT BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S PREVIOUS ADDRESS. P8: COPY OF EXHIBIT P7 RECEIVED ON 5/09/2011 BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).24768/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the successful bidder of about 38,600 coconuts in an auction held by the second respondent. The auction was held on 26.7.2011 and the auctioned quantity should have been removed by the extended period of 17.9.2011. It appears that the petitioner complied with the tender conditions. However, he submits that since he was not allowed to dehusk the coconuts at site, he could not remove the entire quantity. 2. He made a representation in that behalf. However, the request was rejected and he was issued Ext.P8 requiring him to remove the entire quantity before 17.9.2011. It was there upon the writ petition is filed. It is stated on behalf of the second respondent that they did not have any obligation to provide dehusking facility and that the tender conditions specified that the sale shall be a “as is where is” condition. 3. In a matter of tender, parties are regulated by the tender conditions. Therefore, unless the tender conditions enable the W.P.(C).24768/11 2 petitioner to claim dehusking facility, this Court will not be justified in directing that any such facility be provided to the petitioner, for the reason that such direction will amount to variation to tender conditions. In such circumstances, the fact that the respondents did not provide any dehusking facility is not a reason for the petitioner either to seek any direction from this Court or to find fault with Ext.P8. In such circumstances, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, now that the extended time also has run out, it will be open to the petitioner to seek enlargement of time for removal of the auctioned quantity. It is directed that if any such application is made within seven days from today, the same will be considered by the second respondent and appropriate orders thereon will be passed. In the meanwhile, status quo as on date will be maintained. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs