IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36882 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DIJO KAPPEN, MANAGING TRUSTEE, CENTRE FOR CONSUMER EDUCATION, (REG.NO.497/88), MAIN ROAD, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR (PORTS OPERATIONS), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, (PORTS WING), NEW DELHI. 3. COCHIN PORT TRUST, SECRETARIES OFFICE, COCHIN-682009, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN 682009. 5. YOUSUFF ALI M.A., EMKE MANSION-1, NATTIKA P.O., TRICHUR 680566. 6. THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE (TEC), COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKATA BHAVAN, A-BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI-110023. R1,R2 &R7 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA R3, R4 AND R6 BY ADV.SRI.K. ANAND, SC, COCHIN PORT TRUST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 36882 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayers as follows: “i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P9 and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the same. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Port Trust to retender the land in question by inviting fresh tenderers desirably a global tender process giving publicity in all leading National dailies. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the lease granted in favour of the 5th respondent is in violation of the provisions of Sections 82 & 83 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and therefore the grant is void in law.” 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the 3rd respondent took a decision to lease out a certain piece of land, admeasuring 10 hectares of an island known as “Bolgatty Island”. The petitioner herein challenges, both the decision making process as well as the decision, on various grounds. W.P.(C) No. 36882 OF 2010 -:2:- 3. Respondent No.5 is the lessee chosen by the 3rd respondent by a process of inviting tenders from the interested parties. By the impugned decision(Ext.P9) it was decided to allot an extend of 10.59 hectares of land to the 5th respondent for a period of 30 years by way of lease for setting up of Hotels, Resorts, Convention Centre, Shopping mall, Commercial/Office Complex etc with an option for renewal after 30 years. 4. Even according to the petitioner, the 5th respondent was required to pay upfront premium of ` 674 lakhs per hectare for 10 hectares of land as non-refundable one time payment within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the allotment letter. It is also one of the stipulations of the allotment that the lessee shall pay lease rent as follows: “6. The Lessee shall thereafter pay a nominal lease rent @Re.1/-per M2 per annum with 30% escalation after every 5 years for the allotted area of 1,05,900 M2 (10.59 Hectares) for the initial period of 30 years. In the event the lease is extended for a further period of 30 years, the lessee will pay annual lease rentals at the prevailing rates as explained in Clause 2 above.” 5. When the matter came up earlier before this Court, W.P.(C) No. 36882 OF 2010 -:3:- we called upon the petitioner to establish their bonafides by offering a higher amount by what is offered by the 5th respondent or identify a prospective bidder who is willing to offer an amount higher than what is offered by the 5th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner took time on more than one occasion for the above purpose. Today when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel made a categoric statement that the petitioner is not in a position to identify any such person who is willing to offer an amount higher than what is offered by the 5th respondent. 6. The 3rd respondent is a statutory body. It may have its own reasons for deciding to lease out the property held by it. The legality or the wisdom of the 3rd respondent in taking such a decision to lease out its property is not the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The challenge is only to the choice of the 5th respondent. Whether the procedure followed by the 3rd respondent in choosing the 5th respondent as the lessee is strictly in accordance with the requirement of law is only one aspect of the matter which is required to be kept in mind in deciding the question whether this Court should interfere with the W.P.(C) No. 36882 OF 2010 -:4:- decision of the 3rd respondent. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is some lacuna in the procedure followed in making the choice of the 5th respondent, the same by itself, in our opinion, does not warrant interference. By interfering with the decision of the 3rd respondent, in the absence of any other prospective bidder who is willing to offer an amount higher than what is offered by the 5th respondent, this Court would only be scuttling the decision of the 3rd respondent without any benefit either to the 3rd respondent or to the public in general. In the circumstances we do not see any reason to entertain the instant writ petition. The same is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb W.P.(C) No. 36882 OF 2010 -:5:-