IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30711 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. A.R.VENU, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, THULAPPALLY P.O., PAMBAVALI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. A.V.RATHEESH, S/O.VENU, AGED 29 YEARS, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, THULAPPALLY P.O., PAMBAVALI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. E.D.SAJIKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, EDAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THULAPPALLY P.O., PAMBAVALI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP SRI.R.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM OFFICE, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF SABARIMALA, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM OFFICE, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM OFFICE, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. M.P.ABRAHAM, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, THULAPPALLY P.O., NARARAMTHODU, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1 SRI.K.R.SUNIL FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 30711 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the respondents 1 to 4 to fix the location of the slots in Ext.P2 auction schedule in accordance with the 'map' prepared with respect to the area and to fix the slot No.230 and 237 at the current location as per the 'map'. There is also another prayer to direct the said respondents to maintain the terms of the agreement as included in Ext.P1 tender notification and prohibit the use for any purpose not included therein or expressly prohibited like vending of tea or coffee in the “other stalls” and prohibit all kinds of advertisements in the stalls/ blocks in Pampa, Sabarimala and Nilakkal. 2. The issue pertains to auctioning of the various stalls during the festive season at Sabarimala. Necessary tender notification in this regard was issued by the first respondent as borne by Ext.P1 and the schedule with respect to the said notification was separately given as Ext.P2. The petitioners are the successful bidders of certain shops/stalls as specifically contended in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition. The case of WP(C) No. 30711 of 2009 2 the petitioners is that, when the first petitioner started erection of his stall No.5 (slot No.230) at the location stipulated in the 'map' and Ext.P2 schedule, it was noted that, the 5th respondent was attempting to erect the 'block' No.1 bid by him in auction (Slot No. 237) near the first petitioner’s stall No.5, which is stated as contrary to the location in the 'map' and the schedule. It is the case of the petitioners that the stalls allotted to the petitioner and the 5th respondent as per the 'map' and schedule are at far away spaces; which however, has been ignored by the respondents 1 to 4, because of the lapses on their part in fixing the location as per the map. It is contended that the first respondent omitted to identify the location, prior to Ext.P1 tenders and thus has caused great hardship and prejudice to the petitioners, in as much as many stalls which are not shown in the 'map' have come into existence in prominent locations and such erections in the areas, besides causing much erosion of revenue of the first respondent, have also caused huge loss, prejudice and adverse consequences to the business of the petitioners. The petitioners are also aggrieved because of the vending of 'Tea' and 'Coffee' in 'other stalls' by other successful bidders, because of the callous inaction in taking the remedial measures by the respondents 1 to 4 and hence is sought to be interfered in the Writ Petition. 3. The first respondent has filed a statement dated 16.11.2009 and a counter affidavit dated 25.11.2009; denying the averments/ allegations WP(C) No. 30711 of 2009 3 made by the petitioners. It is contended by the first respondent that, the auction/tender of the various stalls/sheds/spaces etc. at Pampa, Pandithavalam, Sannidhanam and Nilakkal in connection with the festival season 1185 M.E., as per Ext.P2 auction schedule was done as scheduled and approved by this Court as per order dated 28.08.2009 in DBA No. 111/2009. It is also stated that, before conducting the auction, the lay out plan of the location of the various stalls/ shops/spaces at Pampa, Sabarimala and Nilakkal was displayed and all the bidders/ tenderers were informed over the 'public address system' to verify the lay out plan and only thereafter, to participate in the auction/tender. It has also been asserted that there was absolutely no change in the lay out plans after notifying the auction schedule and thus specifically denying the allegations raised to the contrary. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board, with specific reference to the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent asserts that, the stalls and blocks that were auctioned at 'Nilakkal' are located at the places situated last year and that there is no change from the said location. It is also pointed out that the 'block' that has been bid in auction by the 5th respondent this year, was a block that was bid in auction by the first petitioner, the last year. It is also pointed out that the bid made by the 5th respondent is a 'block'; whereas the bid made by the first petitioner is an “other stall”. The items sold in “other stall” and a “block” being totally WP(C) No. 30711 of 2009 4 different, it is stated that there is no merit or basis in the claim of the petitioners that their business would be adversely affected by the activities of the 5th respondent in conducting the business in the 'block', at the place as located in the sketch. It is also asserted that, the location of the stalls/blocks is at the same place as shown in the 'lay out plan' that was displayed at the time of the auction and that there has been no change of these locations from that of the last year. The learned counsel further submits that, no vending of Tea or Coffee would be permitted in the “other stall” and if any violation of the tender/allotment condition is brought to the notice of the concerned respondent, appropriate steps will be taken, to have it to be rectified. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause of action has arisen because of the obscurity in the proceedings and because of the non-compliance of all the formalities including identification of the slots, with definite marks/boundaries, which is strongly rebutted from the part of the 1st respondent. In view of the specific assertion made from the part of the respondent Board that the proceedings have been finalized and the stalls have been allotted as shown in the location plan/sketch and further that it was given wide publicity, it cannot be said that there is any infringement of any vested right of the petitioners in any manner so as to call for interference. This is more so, when there is black and white difference between the nature of the stalls bid by the first petitioner and the one bid by the 5th respondent as WP(C) No. 30711 of 2009 5 pointed out by the first respondent; which forms the primary point for consideration with regard to the first prayer. With regard to the second prayer, no specific instance has been pointed out by the petitioners as to conduct of any activity contrary to the specifications in Ext.P1 tender, in the stalls/slots allotted to anybody and no such person has been included in the party array. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, absolutely no interference is called for, but for observing that the respondents 1 to 4 shall take appropriate action, if violation of the terms and conditions of allotment by the successful bidders is brought to their notice. Similarly, all possible efforts shall be made by the respondent Board to have clarity and identification of the slots specifying the identification marks/ measurements as to be included in the lay out plan/sketch, in connection with the tender for the forthcoming years; lest there should arise any further dispute from any corner in this regard. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc