IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34244 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- B.HARIDAS, S/O.BHASI,RESIDING AT TC.51/967, RESHMA HOUSE, GANGA NAGAR, PAPPANAMCODE PO, TRIVANDRUM 695 018. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM 695 527. 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR TRIVANDRUM 695 523. 3. RATNAKARAN NAIR, BRV HOUSE, VILAPPILSALA TRIVANDRUM 695 573. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.N.NAMBIAR, SC FOR KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.34244/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.G1/4637/10/CENTRAL DTD. 15.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34244 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Tenders were invited by the 1st respondent for letting out stall No.4 in Trivandrum Central Bus station. The 3rd respondent was the only bidder and his offer was `.66,000/- plus tax. Being the only offer raised, that was accepted and it is there upon this writ petition was filed challenging the tender procedure adopted and the acceptance of the offer made by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner's complaint is that, wide publicity was not given and that if such publicity was given, there would have been better response and enhanced offer. According to the petitioner, in the previous year, the stall was let out for `.64,000/- and this year the stall is allotted for a megre sum of `.66,000/-. 3. When the matter came up before this court on 15.11.2010, the petitioner gave an undertaking that if a fresh tender is invited, the petitioner will make a minimum offer of 2 W.P.(C).No.34244 of 2010 `.80,000/- plus tax per month. In view of the offer thus made, this court stopped further proceedings in the matter and issued notice to the 3rd respondent and though notice has been served on the 3rd respondent, he has not cared to appear or file his counter. 4. The Standing Counsel for KSRTC, on instructions submitted that the usual procedure of publicity was gone through in this case also and that the 3rd respondent has remitted the entire rent. Still fact remains that the tender has been confirmed in pursuance to Ext.P1, considering the only tender that was made by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the contention that, the response received against the tender notice was unsatisfactory, is a fact which has to be accepted. 5. Now that the petitioner has undertaken that, if a re- tender is issued, he shall make an offer of not less than `.80,000/- per month, I feel that a re-tender has to be conducted with a due publicity so that, that is likely to result in increase in the income of the 1st respondent. However such a re-tender can be ordered only subject to conditions, as otherwise the KSRTC will have to refund the amount collected from the 3rd respondent 3 W.P.(C).No.34244 of 2010 and at the same time if the petitioner does not participate in the re-tender, gross prejudice will be caused to KSRTC. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. (1) That the petitioner shall remit an amount of `.80,000/- with applicable taxes with the 1st respondent, this being the minimum rate offered by the petitioner for one month, within a week from today. If such a deposit is made, the KSRTC will, give due publicity and invite fresh tenders in respect of stall no.4 in Trivandrum Central Bus station. (2) It is clarified that if the petitioner does not make deposit within the time allowed, it will be open to the KSRTC to proceed with the tender awarded to the 3rd respondent. (3) That, in case after making deposit, the petitioner does not participate in the tender process, the KSRTC will be free to forfeit the amount deposited by him without any right to the petitioner to claim refund of the 4 W.P.(C).No.34244 of 2010 amount. (4) Once deposit is made by the petitioner, the KSRTC shall immediately take steps and complete the re-tender process at any rate within 10 days thereafter. (5) It is also clarified that ultimately if the petitioner is the successful bidder, `.80,000/- plus applicable taxes remitted by him in compliance with the above direction will be adjusted to towards the rental, the full amount of which he will have to be paid in advance. (6) If the petitioner participate in the re-tender process and does not succeed in getting the tender awarded to him, he will be free to claim refund of the amount deposited. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. ami/