IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10496 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ASHRAF, AGED 45, S/O.KHALID CHERIVUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARAYANKAVU KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682 315 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------- THE AMBALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AMBALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682 315. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.10496 OF 2008 (Y) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The respondent Panchayat published Ext. P1, an auction notice by which the Panchayat proposed to conduct auction the right to conduct business in the markets mentioned in Ext. P1. This included a chicken stall attached to the Kulayattikkara public market, which is at Sl. No. 8 in Ext. P1. Petitioner submits that in the auction conducted in pursuance to Ext. P1, he was the successful bidder. According to him, by Ext. P2 resolution of the Panchayat, passed on 22.3.2008, the Panchayat confirmed the auction in his favour. Following Ext. P2 resolution of the Panchayat, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Panchayat and remitted all amounts that are due. 2. While the agreement was thus concluded and the petitioner had commenced his business, the Panchayat proceeded to allot an additional stall in the same market earmarking the same as a chicken stall and proposed to auction the stall on 27.3.2008. W.P.(C) No. 10496 OF 2008 -2- Complaining that the Panchayat initially had earmarked only one of the stalls as the chicken stall and that it was on that basis that the petitioner had participated and bid the auction, petitioner submitted Ext. P3 application before the Panchayat requesting that further proceedings for conducting the second auction should be discontinued. Petitioner submits that Ext. P3 did not evoke any response and on the other hand the Panchayat went ahead with the auction. 3. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed on 27.3.2008. On 27.3.2008 an order was passed by this Court clarifying that the conduct and confirmation of the auction will be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. It is stated that the Panchayat conducted the auction and that the same was confirmed in favour of the person who was successful in the second auction. 4. Though notice has been served on the Panchayat there is no counter affidavit filed on its behalf. 5. As is evident from Ext. P1, only one of the stalls at Sl. No. 8 of Kulayattikkara public market was earmarked as the chicken stall. Nowhere in Ext. P1, has the Panchayat made any statement that it W.P.(C) No. 10496 OF 2008 -3- will be at liberty to allot additional stalls for the same purposes for which portions of the same market have been auctioned. It is on the basis of terms of Ext.P1 as above that the petitioner bid in the auction. If that be so, the petitioner is justified in contending that it is on the basis of the representation of the Panchayat that the stalls indicated in Ext. P1 alone will be auctioned for the purposes mentioned therein that he had participated in the auction and concluded the deal and therefore the Panchayat cannot act contrary to that. 6. It goes without saying that if additional stalls are allotted by the Panchayat for the purposes indicated in Ext. P1 itself, that will certainly affect the earnings of the petitioner. Further, if the Panchayat had made it known its intention to auction additional stalls for the same purpose, it is only natural that the rate offered by the petitioner also would not have been the same. If that be so, I must hold that the petitioner has acted upon the representation of the Panchayat and had altered his position to his detriment. In such a situation the Panchayat has to be held bound by the promise it had made to the petitioner. Therefore, the Panchayat cannot allot W.P.(C) No. 10496 OF 2008 -4- additional stalls for the same purpose as mentioned in Ext. P1 and conduct auction on that basis. For that reason, I hold that the petitioner alone has the right to conduct the chicken stall in the Kulayattikkara public market of the respondent Panchayat during the period 2008-09 in pursuance to Ext. P2, resolution passed by the Panchayat. Respondent Panchayat will pass necessary consequential orders within 2 weeks. 7. True the successful bidder in the auction held on 27.3.2008 is not a party to the writ petition. But then since this Court has already directed by order dated 27.3.2008 that conduct and confirmation of the auction will be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, his non-impleadment is not of any consequence. Writ petition is allowed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-