IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9439 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.KUNJEENPILLA, PLAMATTATHU HOUSE, PARAPPURAM P.O., KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SREEMOOLANAGARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MARAMPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R2 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R2 SC SRI. BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.9439 OF 2010(D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that on the basis of an agreement with the fist respondent Panchayat he was operating a ferry between Thekkekovilakam - Manjapetty for the period 2008-2010. According to the petitioner for various reasons, he suffered huge loss and therefore, he submitted Ext.P2 to P5 to the first respondent requesting for extending the contract period in order to recoup the loss. 2. Petitioner submits that by Exts.P6 and P7 the first respondent forwarded the request to the 2nd respondent. The matter is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent and while so the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P9 auction notice, in terms of which, the right to operate the ferry for two years from 1.4.2010 is proposed to be auctioned and the auction is scheduled to be head on today. Petitioner also submits that he had represented to the Government by filing Ext.P13 of this matter and that the same is also forwarded to the 2nd respondent Panchayat for appropriate action. It is stated that without taking a decision on WPC.No.9439 /2010 :2 : the representation the Panchayat ought not have proceeded to conduct auction by Ext.P9. 3. I heard the counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the Government Pleader. 4. As already seen, by Exts.P6 and P7 the first respondent before whom the claim for compensation was initially raised by the petitioner has forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent for an appropriate decision. Ext.P13 also shows that the Government also forwarded the petitioner's representation to the 2nd respondent for a decision. Second respondent has no case that it has taken any decision in the matter. Therefore, I feel that the 2nd respondent should have decided on the claim made by the petitioner, before scheduling the action. 5. However, since auction has been scheduled to be held today, I feel while the 2nd respondent can proceed with the auction, its confirmation shall be made only after taking a decision on Exts.P6,P7 and P13. Therefore the writ petition is dispose of with the following direction. WPC.No.9439 /2010 :3 : Panchayat will take a final decision on Exts.P6,P7 and P13. Auction pursuant to Ext.P9 scheduled to be held can go on but its confirmation will await a decision on Exts.P6,P7 and P13. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE