IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15453 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PRAMOD K.V,S/O.VASU,KANDANPULLY HOUSE, THALAPPALLY TALUK,THRISSUR P.O., KOONAMMOOCHI BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,REP.BY ADMINISTRATOR, O/O.GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYUR P.O., THRISSUR DIST.PIN-680 101 2. THE GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, GURUVAYUR P.O., THRISSUR DIST.PIN-680 101 3. O.R.MANOJ, OLLAKKOOT HOUSE, GURUVAYUR P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 101 *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED *R4: U.PRADEEP, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, “PONNETH HOUSE”, PAYYUR, KOONAMMOCHI.P.O., THRISSUR.PIN-680 504. * ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/6/2011 IN IANO.9073/2011 R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON,SC R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.M.SREEKUMAR R3 BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP R4 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON 11/08/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.15453/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 3/3/2011 P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT OBTAINED AS PER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P3 COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY NALINI AMMA DATED 22/3/2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/3/2011 P5 COPY OF THE REPORT MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 1/6/2011. P6 COPY OF THE BILL DATED 4/6/2011 IS ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DEVOTEES. P7 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1/6/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A) COPY OF THE TENDER ALONG WITH A MANAGER'S CHEQUE DATED 24/3/2011. R3(B) COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM DATED 24/3/2011. R3(C) COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF LICENCE FEE FOR 'AVANI VIDEOS' DATED 10/8/2009, 2/2/2010 AND 7/8/2010. R3(D) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY DATED 21/3/2010. R3(E) COPY OF THE WORK ORDER CONTAINING THE TENDER CONDITIONS ISSUED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM DATED 31/5/2011. R3(F) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY DATED 4/12/2000. R3(G) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY DATED 23/2/2001. R3(H) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY DATED 18/4/2002. R3(I) COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED IN REGARD TO THE TELEPHONE INSTALLED IN THE PREMISES DATED 7/7/2006. R4(A) COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF MR.VINOD FOR LICENCE. R4(B) COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.15453/2011 R4(C) COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE ADDL.R4TH RESPONDENT. R4(D) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR TO ADDL.R4TH RESPONDENT. R4(E) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS TO THE ADDL.R4TH RESPONDENT. R4(F) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.15453 of 2011-F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Chorunu and Thulabhaaram are offerings/rituals in the Guruvayur temple. They are held within the temple premises and therefore, certain restrictions are imposed so that faith and attendant matters are not breached. Photography and videography are restricted. Guruvayur Devaswom issued Ext.P1 notification inviting tenders for exclusive right to photograph Chorunu and Thulabhaaram and videograph Chembai Music Festival. The contract was awarded to the 3rd respondent. Petitioner, a rival, challenges that. Additional respondent no.4, hereinafter called, 'respondent no.4', got impleaded at his application. WPC15453/11 -: 2 :- 2.Petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 had quoted. The highest being the 3rd respondent's quotation, that was accepted. Petitioner, whose bid was the second highest contends that the 3rd respondent does not have a photo studio within a radius of 1 km. of Guruvayur temple, a specific condition at Sl.No.11 among the terms in Ext.P1. 3.The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit with materials in his attempt to demonstrate that he has a studio-cum-photo distribution centre within 1 km. radius. 4.The Devaswom has filed counter affidavit stating that it acted on the receipt issued by the Guruvayur Municipality of having received the licence fee and that the building of the 3rd respondent is within the required limit as to distance. 5.While there was some litigation between respondents 3 and 4 before the Munsiff's Court, WPC15453/11 -: 3 :- Chavakkad and an original petition from that, before this Court, that is irrelevant for this case. 6.As of now, following interim orders issued in this case, the 3rd respondent, who has been identified as the highest bidder, has been awarded the work provisionally and subject to final orders in this writ petition. He has started operating from 1.6.2011. 7.The last date for submission of applications in terms of Ext.P1 was 24.3.2011 and 31.5.2011 is the date fixed for opening the tenders and the period of contract is to commence from 1.6.2011. 8.Of abundant importance, in our view, is the counter affidavit of the Guruvayur Municipality which is the 2nd respondent in this writ petition. It categorically states in paragraph 3 that the 3rd respondent had submitted Ext.P2 application for licence on 21.3.2011 along with WPC15453/11 -: 4 :- licence fee of Rs.75/-. Certain defects were noted in that application. There was some difference in the initials in the name of the applicant in two of the columns. Similarly, the name of the owner of the building is shown as Krishnadas while the consent letter is shown to have been issued by one Naliniamma. The Municipality, on verification of records, found that Naliniamma is the owner of the building. This means that the consent letter was issued by the true owner of the building. It is an uncontroverted pleading of the 3rd respondent that Krishnadas is the son of Naliniamma. The Guruvayur Municipality has stated in its counter affidavit that it has called upon the 3rd respondent to cure the defects in the application and notice has been issued on 14.6.2011 for that purpose. The Municipality has categorically stated that the 3rd respondent is entitled to the issuance of licence, however that, the same can be issued only if the defects noted in the application are cured. They also say that the WPC15453/11 -: 5 :- officials of the Municipality conducted an inspection of the premises of the 3rd respondent on 9.6.2011 and it was found that the studio is functioning in the said building. 9.With the aforesaid, we have to necessarily conclude that even before 24.3.2011, the last date fixed for submission of applications, the 3rd respondent had submitted an application for licence before the Municipality on 21.3.2011 and had remitted the requisite fee. The Municipal authority has not rejected that application on any ground. It has, in fact, identified the application as one fit to be granted, subject only to the need for rectification of the defects which have been noted. Under such circumstances, law enjoins that once the application is granted, such licence will be effective from the date of submission of application and the payment of licence fee, which is 21.3.2011. Then, the 3rd respondent's licence would be effective from 21.3.2011 before the last date fixed for WPC15453/11 -: 6 :- submission of tenders. On this ground, the writ petition has only to fail. 10.Be that as it may, we would also consider the submissions made on behalf of the 4th respondent, though he has not challenged the award of contract to the 3rd respondent. He says that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent do not satisfy many of the conditions prescribed in Ext.P1 and the primary consideration should be as to the competence to take photographs. According to the 4th respondent, while he had been doing that during the previous years, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent do not have the knowledge to do that. Clause 16 of Ext.P1 says that only Hindus could be deputed to take photographs. This clause, obviously, shows that the activity of taking the photographs and processing it, even in digital mode and providing the prints, need not be done by the contractor himself. Similarly, the terms of Ext.P1 also conceive the saving and transmission of the pictures using pen drive, WPC15453/11 -: 7 :- blue ray chip, on-line transmission etc. Obviously therefore, the exercise to be carried out is not conceived to be one to be centred around any particular individual who would take the contract. We also note that the bid amount is about Rs.85 lakhs which reflects the volume of work. It cannot be carried out by a single individual. 11.For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition does not merit grant of any relief as sought for. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Judge. Sha/1008