IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 10737 of 2009(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, S/O.HASSAN KANI RAWTHER, KOCHUPILATHUNDIL VEEDU, MUSLIM STREET, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3. SMT.SHYLAJA DEVI, THAMARASSERY. NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 16/07/2009 IN I.A.NO.8557/09) R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR.C.J.JOY, SC,KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10737/2009 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.E7-1/09 DTD. 02/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1 IN BOOK NO.8189 DTD. 27/03/2009. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/03/2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SETASIDE THE AUCTION. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 9/03/2009 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 24/03/2009 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE FAX MESSAGE DTD. 11/06/2009 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO HIS COUNSEL. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.10737 of 2009-J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The additional third respondent was running a shop as given to her on licence by the second respondent grama panchayat. There was default in payment of occupation charges. Resultantly, the panchayat advertised for the auction of the room. The petitioner was the highest bidder. Following the auction, the panchayat received advance of one month's rent and deposit of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner. Later, the committee of the panchayat decided to revive the licence granted to the third respondent by accepting one of her representations, thereby torpedoing the auction itself. As a consequence, the petitioner was left with no opportunity to occupy the room bid by him. That led to this writ petition challenging the action taken by the panchayat. WP(C)10737/09 -: 2 :- 2.The plea extended is that the panchayat committee had, at a later point of time, resolved to accept the request of the additional third respondent permitting her to pay the arrears and to continue in occupation. It is also projected that the auction was provisional and it was not actually confirmed in favour of the petitioner. 3.To say the least, the defence of the panchayat is nothing but an expression of a feudal mind set running over and above the statutory provisions and the concept of a transparent democratic establishment. Such an approach defeats the very purpose of the constitutional amendments that ultimately led to the formation of the Local Self Government Institutions as they now stand for grass root management and for people participation in the management of this great Nation. 4.Once the auction was decided to be held, following the undisputed fact that the third WP(C)10737/09 -: 3 :- respondent had defaulted in payment of amounts for continued occupation and the panchayat having spent money even for publication of the auction notice and for all other incidentals to conduct the auction, it does not lie in its mouth, in consonance with the Rule of Law to state that the auction has been given a go-by and the panchayat has conceded to the request of one who had defaulted the terms of the earlier contract. Not only that, Ext.P2 categorically says that the petitioner had paid the advance which is required in terms of the auction and had also remitted the deposit to be made. It is impermissible, unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary for the panchayat to turn round and stand by the decision that it projects against the auction in which the petitioner had bid. 5.The result of the aforesaid discussions is that the writ petition is entitled to succeed. The same is allowed quashing Ext.P3 and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to WP(C)10737/09 -: 4 :- immediately enjoy the fruits of the auction. I am inclined to issue an order of costs in favour of the petitioner. The panchayat members cannot shy off their liability for not having acted in terms of the confidence reposed on them by virtue of the office they hold. However, taking into consideration the very persuasive submissions on behalf of the panchayat, an order of costs is being held back. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/280809