IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20106 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- V.L. SASI, VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI.P.O, IDUKKI DT. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVARAGES COPRORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SUNNY VARGHESE, KOLLARMALIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI.P.O, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20106 OF 2008 R ==================== Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the landlord of building No.127A in Ward No.II in Rajakumari Panchayath. According to him, that building was offered for locating FL-1 shop No.307. Ext.P1 is referred to as a proposal for shifting the shop to the building in question and the said proposal is seen to have approved by the Secretary of the 1st respondent by Ext.P2. Petitioner also states that he had given his consent by Ext.P3. According to him, it was thereafter that all on a sudden, for malafide reasons, the respondents have decided to take on lease a building belonging to the 3rd respondent. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed praying for implementation of Ext.P2 and also to direct the 2nd respondent to enquire as to whether the building now chosen is suitable for locating the shop in question. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent where they conceded that an offer was received from the petitioner. It is stated that the offer was processed and was eventually approved by the Secretary of the 1st respondent. However, it was later found that the WPC 20106/08 :2 : building was insufficient. It is stated that at that stage, they had considered other options and while so, an offer was received from the 3rd respondent, which was found to be more suitable. It is stated that it was accordingly that a proposal has been made to the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Idukki for licence and that the matter is pending. 3. In the matter of choosing the building for locating the shop of the 1st respondent, the freedom has to be conceded to the 1st respondent. May be interference is possible, but then unless an extreme case of arbitrariness or malafides are made out, this court should be slow to step in and interfere. In this case, the respondent has stated that the building offered by the petitioner and initially approved by them was later found to be insufficient. If on such considerations, the respondents have reviewed their decisions, this court will not be justified in upsetting the same. 4. Petitioner has a case that right from 2005, on the promises made by the 1st respondent that the building will be taken on lease, he kept the building vacant and that in that process, he suffered losses. According to him, despite this, the respondents have decided to opt for the building offered by the 3rd respondent, which is in no way superior to what he had offered. Even if there is substance in what the petitioner now WPC 20106/08 :3 : contends, it may make out a case for damages which he can claim only in a proper proceedings before the Civil Court. I do not think exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this court should interfere in this matter. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp