IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8350 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.R.JANARDANAN, MILMA LICENCEE, TALUK HOSPITAL, WADAKANCHERY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (F) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HOSPITAL, WADAKANCHERY, THRISSUR. 3. THE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, TALUK HOSPITAL, WADAKANCHERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 8350 OF 2008 R ==================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4. Petitioner submits that on the strength of Ext.P1, he is entitled to be preferred in the matter of awarding contract for running milma booth in the hospital premises. 2. Yet another contention that is raised is relying on Ext.P3 judgment of this court where acting upon the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Government have passed orders enabling licensees like the petitioner to get their licenses renewed, it was directed that before issuing any tender, the petitioner should be put on notice and his claim for renewal of the licence shall be considered. 3. It is now submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Superintendent of the Hospital who issued Ext.P4 tender had issued notice to the petitioner, and the petitioner's claim was also considered. 4. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that is now raised before me is that on the basis of Ext.P1, petitioner is entitled to get the licence period renewed. I am not in a position to accept this WPC 8350/08 :2 : contention of the petitioner. Ext.P1 Government Order only says that preference will be given to milma agents while sanctioning booths. Preference can only mean that other things being equal, the milma agent mentioned in Ext.P1 will be preferred. In this case, tender has been issued by Ext.P4 notice and if the petitioner is equally placed like other tenderers, who too have responded to Ext.P4, petitioner is entitled to get preference. But then, that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to be preferred to the exclusion of all other tenderers or that he is entitled to get automatic renewal of his licence. In view of this, petitioner cannot claim any vested right for renewal of the licence period and therefore, I do not find anything illegal in Ext.P4 particularly when petitioner has already been heard as directed by this court in Ext.P3. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp