IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35254 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.SURESHKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, GRA 15, KONOTHU VEEDU, GOURISAPATTOM, PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INDIAN BANK,KOLLAM, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. M/S.SUNDARESAN, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. R1 BY SHRI S. EASWARANA, SC, IB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 35254 OF 2008 V -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the refusal to permit the petitioner to participate in the auction conducted pursuant to Ext.P1 publication sale notice issued by the first respondent Bank. Ext.P1 specifically provides the last date for submitting the tenders/bids is before 5 PM on 8.11.2008. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted tender and participated in the auction in lot No.4 by making payment of EMD and also quoting the amount. But, there were higher bids. Ext.P1 had been published. Petitioner approached the first respondent. Petitioner wanted to participate. It is further stated that when the petitioner approached the first respondent with the money on 8.11.2008, he was told that there was a stay order from the High Court and hence the tender could not be opened on 10.11.2008. It is the specific submission that WPC.35254/08 V 2 the Bank was willing to accept the tender, but could not specify as to when the bids could be opened. It is also stated that this would mean that if the EMD is deposited, the same was likely to be blocked indefinitely. It is further stated that the petitioner could not submit his tender in such uncertain conditions and enquired in the matter. Reference was made to W.P.(C). No.32696/08 wherein the petitioner therein obtained an order. It is then stated that the petitioner understood that the High Court has passed an order directing the respondent to open the bid only on 1.12.2008. It is then stated that the petitioner has approached the first respondent to accept his tender, but it was declined. The grounds taken are that it is illegal, arbitrary and against natural justice. It is stated that the petitioner's credibility cannot be questioned as the petitioner had participated in a bid quoting a huge amount of Rs.1,75,85,000/= and that the respondent had accepted tenders from several other participants, but in connivance with other participants, is declining the legitimate claim of the petitioner. WPC.35254/08 V 3 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. The sale is being held pursuant to a Notification. The last date and time were specifically mentioned. There is no provision as such permitting the Bank to receive tenders given after the last date. It is also pointed out that the Apex Court in PSEB And Others v. Bhatia International Ltd. ((2006) 13 SCC 284) has discountenanced any extension of time being granted by the High Court. I see no valid reason to grant any of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner and the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge