IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2311 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. C.K.GOPI, SIVAS HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR 686 631. 2. P.A. RAVI, PULIKKANTHOTTIYIL, ETTUMANOOR 686 631. . BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R1-3 R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 2311 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Petitioners are stated to be devotees of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple. This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation so as to avoid loss to the Devaswom as a result of non-payment of the contract amount after the stipulated period. It is pointed out that right to sell the items through the various stalls are auctioned through Kuthakalelam. The auction purchaser is to deposit 10% of the amount initially and if he is the highest bidder, he will have to deposit 50% of the auction amount on confirmation of auction sale. For the remaining 50%, the highest bidder used to give solevency certificates. No bank guarantee or valid security is obtained for this 50% amount. As a result, in case of default, the Devaswom will be losing 50% of the bid amount. WPC. 2311/2009. 2 2. The remarks filed by the Devaswom Board through Secretary shows that it is only in the rarest of rate cases that this happends since no extension is normally given after the expiry of the six months period in case the 25% thereafter is not remitted before such expiry. 3. The Local Fund Auditor has also suggested that by incorporating appropriate clauses in the tender condition and in the agreement so as to plug any loophole and to ensure that no loss is sustained to insist for a bank guarantee for 50% of the bid amount. No specific remark is offered by the Devaswom in the matter. 4. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, we find that sufficient security by way of immovable property is required to be furnished at the time of entering into the contract. The problem arises because atleast in some cases where the contractor is permitted to continue even after six months without he being remitted 25% of the amount may result in loss owing to his default in payment of 25% unless suit for realisation is not filed WPC. 2311/2009. 3 within three years. Therefore, we direct that in cases where six months period expires and 25% is not remitted before the expiry of the said period, either the contract be terminated and loss recovered or insist for security by way of Bank Guarantee. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.