IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31971 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ GEE KAY HYGIENICS PRIVATE LIMITED, ASAMANOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.MAHESH KUMAR. B, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, POOCHAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALAI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SRI.N.SAJAN ANTONY, SRI.S.K.PREMJITH MENON, SRI.MANEKSHA.D. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD AT NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 032. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WL), DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND WILD LIFE, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, `VANALAKSHMI', THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031. R1 BY ADV. MR.V. KRISHNA MENON. R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.31971 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner says that he is involved in packing drinking water. He challenges Ext.P1 notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board inviting expression of interest for sale of drinking water in Sannidhanan and Pampa during the ensuing Sabarimala season. By order dated 12.10.2010 in DBA.116/10, we have granted approval for the contract pursuant to the said invitation. Now, the writ petition in hand is filed contending that Ext.P1 was not published in any edition of Indian Express other than its Madras Edition. On this plea, it was pointed out that the petitioner, an operator from Kerala, did not see that advertisement. We recalled that even the affidavit in DBA.116/10 contains the averment of the TDB that the advertisement was published in different editions. We, WPC.31971/10 2 therefore, have the judges’ papers of DBA.116/10 before us. We see that there is averment by TDB that the advertisement was published in all Indian Editions of Indian Express. Today, learned counsel for the TDB has placed before us an invoice of payment of expenses towards express publications for all Indian editions in relation to the advertisement in question. Hence, the ground urged before us and considered by us today fails. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner says that though Ext.P1 does not proceed to give exclusive vending rights to the successful tenderer, Ext.P2 has been issued by the TDB essentially granting exclusive vending rights and this amounts to modulation or change in the terms of the offer and hence there should be re-tender. He relies on the judgment of this Court in Mundakkayam Sadasivan and Another v. G.C.D.A. and Others [2004(2) KLJ 595] in support of this contention. We are clear in our mind that the law is well settled, i.e., to the effect that the terms of an invitation for offers would not be tinkered in such a way, after its issuance, that it changes WPC.31971/10 3 the terms of the invitation and if it does change the terms of the invitation, there has to be a re-invitation. We do not find any such situation arising in the case in hand. Firstly, the clause complained of from Ext.P2 is that the TDB will ensure that no other packaged water is sold through the licensed commercial outlets at Pampa along the trekking routes and at Sannidhanam. Such clause also provides that pilgrims may either carry their own water bottles of any quality or brand for their personal use. Therefore, no pilgrim can make out a case of any inconvenience owing to Ext.P2. There cannot be any vending and any hawking and sale or any other commercial activity in Sabarimala, Pampa and adjacent places. The reasons for such regulation are multifarious. The writ petitioner is admittedly no one who has an authorised commercial outlet at Pampa or at Sannidhanam or aside the trekking route from Pampa to Sannidhanam. He cannot, therefore, make a complaint that the clause relating to exclusiveness in Ext.P2 works against his interest. On this ground also, the writ petition fails. WPC.31971/10 4 No other ground is urged before us. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.21/10.