IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27601 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SRI.ABDUL RAZZACK,CHELAMBADAM HOUSE, OLD VYTHIRI,VYTHIRI. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SRI.P.K.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,VYTHIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VYTHIRI.P.O.WAYANAD. 2. THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,VYTHIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) 27601/2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the Vythiri Grama Panchayath on 18.8.2010 as regards the right to run a tourist centre established by the Panchayath. The petitioner was the highest bidder and his bid was accepted subject to confirmation by the Committee of the Panchayath. The Panchayat Committee is going to retender the right to run the tourist centre as the monthly rent quoted is very low. Hence this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: i. Isue a writ of certiorari quashing decision No. 126 of the second respondent to conduct re-auction of the right to conduct Lakkidi tourist centre. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to confirm the auction held on 18.8.2010 and direct them to execute the agreement with the petitioner for running the Lakkidi tourist centre. 2. Ext.P2, the auction diary disclosed that the Committee of the Panchayat met on 27.6.2010 resolved to retender the right as it is of the WP(C) 27601/2010 2 opinion that the amount fetched in the auction is low. In my opinion, the mere fact that the petitioner has offered to pay Rs. 31,500/- per month is not a reason to hold that the Committee of the Panchayat is bound to accept the said offer and cannot go in for a re-auction. Ext.P2 discloses that the petitioner's offer was accepted only as provisional, subject to confirmation by the Committee of the Panchayat. In my opinion, the petitioner has no vested right to have the right to run the tourist centre given to him pursuant to the auction. I find therefore, no grounds in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) knc/-