IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26628 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.SUJATHA RANI D/O RAMALINGAM NADAR C/O SONIYA NELSON.DREAMLAND, THALIYAL, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIYAVATTOM CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PIN-695 034 2. NAUSHIR, THARIVILAKATH HOUSE, SANTHI VILA, NEMON P.O, TRIVANANTHAPURAM-695 020. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC FOR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.26628/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DTD.15.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION SUBMITTED ON 03.10.2011 BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH A DEMAND DRAFT FOR RS.2,500 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.04.10.2011 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26628 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that though she had submitted tender in pursuance to Ext.P1 tender cum auction notice, she was not permitted to participate in the auction and that the vehicle in question was sold in favour of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner submits that Ext.P1 tender notice was published by the 1st respondent inviting tenders and for auction of the four vehicles mentioned therein. It is stated that, for the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/C 6941, petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 tender offering `35,000/- along with EMD of `2,500/-. It is stated that, thereafter when auction was scheduled, she was not permitted to participate and that accepting the offer made by the 2nd respondent in the auction, the vehicle was sold in his favour. It is aggrieved by the above, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Standing counsel has obtained instructions in the matter. While he agrees that in response to Ext.P1, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 tender offering `35,000/- along with EMD of `2,500/-, he submits that in order to participate in the auction, WPC No. 26628/11 :2 : separate EMD was required to be remitted and that since the petitioner refused to remit EMD for auction, she was not permitted to participate in the auction. It is stated that, in the auction so held, `39,500/- was offered by the 2nd respondent, and that, it being the highest, the same was accepted and the vehicle was sold to him. It is therefore contended that there is no illegality committed by the 1st respondent warranting interference. 3. In the matter of auction, conditions to be satisfied by those who participate are those laid down in the auction notice. A reading of Ext.P1 auction notice shows that for both tender and auction, separate EMD are to be remitted by those who want to participate. Admittedly, in the auction, the petitioner did not remit any EMD. If that be so, she could not have been allowed to participate. If that be so, the acceptance of the offer made by the 2nd respondent, which is higher than what was offered by the petitioner, cannot be said to be illegal for any reason. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp