IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16993 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TAXI OPERATOR'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.E-998, COCHIN AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BOARD MEMBER, SHRI.PAUL JACOB, S/O.P.JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-36. 4. A.S.SASI, AYYANCHIRA HOUSE, NEAR IBP PUMP, PONGANI, KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR 2 &3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 &3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 &3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 &3 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 &3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).16993/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT 2nd respondent issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for running Jubilee Retail Outlet at Angamaly. Petitioner challenges one of the conditions in Ext.P1 which requires an applicant to have an average annual turnover of Rs.15 Crores minimum, to make him eligible to apply. According to the petitioner, this condition has been incorporated with the specific intention of favouring the 4th respondent, who is a contractor for the earlier period. Hence the writ petition challenging the conditions in the notification and also the further steps taken in that behalf by the 2nd respondent. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 3. They affirm that Ext.P1 notification was issued on 15.12.2008 and the last date for receipt of the applications was 31.12.2008. The contract itself was awarded for a period of two years vide Ext.R2(a) dated 1.4.2009. Writ petition was filed only on 18.6.2009. They have also affirmed that the 4th respondent is otherwise eligible. W.P.(C).16993/09 2 Justification is also offered for the incorporation of such a condition that the applicant must have had an average annual turnover of Rs.15 Crores on the ground that annual turnover in the Outlet in question would be in the region of Rs.45 Crores. I do not propose to go into the merits of the contentions qua the condition that the average annual turnover of the applicant for the Outlet in question must have been a minimum of Rs.15 Crores. I am not inclined to consider the contention regarding eligibility of the 4th respondent in this writ petition since the notification in question was issued in December 2008 and the award of the contract itself took place in April 2009. I am therefore not inclined to interfere with either the notification or the award of the contract in favour of the 4th respondent. Contentions of the parties in this regard are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs