IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23157 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- GANESH.B.MENON THANATH HOUSE, MARAMPALLY P.O. MANJAPETTY, VAZHAKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. SREEMOOLANAGARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SREEMOOLANAGARAM PO. 2. SECRETARY, SREEMOOLANAGARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SREEMOOLANAGARAM PO. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.AJAYAGHOSH - R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23157/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is a tender notice published by the respondent Panchayat for conduct of Jankar service, connecting Manjapetti Thekkekovilakam area. Petitioner was one of the bidders. In Ext.P2 judgment rendered by this court in WP (c).No.18729/2008 filed by the petitioner, allowing the writ petition, this court held as follows; “For all these reasons, I am satisfied that the petitioner is justified in seeking confirmation of the auction in his favour. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that auction pursuant to Ext.P3 will be confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Panchayat is WP(c).No.23157/2008 2 directed to require the petitioner to remit the EMD which it has refunded and confirm the auction in his name as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 10 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the above directions are issued on the assumption that the petitioner satisfied all eligibility conditions of Ext.P3 and this is a matter for the Panchayat to examine and in case if he does not satisfy any of the eligibility conditions of Ext.P3, Panchayat will not be bound to confirm the auction.” 2. In this writ petition, the complaint is that, by Ext.P3 dated 19.7.2008, petitioner was called upon to comply with the requirements mentioned therein within 3 days. He is WP(c).No.23157/2008 3 also asked to execute the agreement in a stamp paper worth 5% of the contract value and also to remit 50% of the bid amount. According to him, in terms of the tender notice his obligation is to pay the amount only in four instalments and therefore the demand for payment of 50% is illegal. 3. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that, in terms of the judgment, the Panchayat was required to complete the formalities within 10 days of the receipt of the judgment. The judgment was received by them on 18.7.2008 and it was thereafter the Panchayat has Ext.P3 required the petitioner to complete the formalities within 3 days. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P3, petitioner had made Ext.R1 application dated 24.7.2008 seeking extension of time till 27.8.2007 and that the Panchayat has granted time as requested for. It is stated that during the extended period, the petitioner did not comply with the directions in Ext.P3. WP(c).No.23157/2008 4 4. In so far as the demand for payment of 50% of the amount payable is concerned, referring to Ext.P1 tender notice, counsel for the Panchayat submits that clause 5 provides that at the time of provisional confirmation, the successful bidder is required to remit one of the four instalments payable by him. It is stated that at the time of execution of the agreement, bidder is to remit the second instalment. Since the petitioner was to execute the agreement as directed by this court, in view of the fact that the petitioner had not made the initial payment, the Panchayat required him to remit 50% towards the first and second instalments payable. Similarly, so far as the contention of the petitioner against the direction of the Panchayat to execute the agreement on a stamp paper worth 5% of the contract value, the counsel for the Panchayat has referred me to Ext.P1 and submits that it is one of the conditions of the tender itself. WP(c).No.23157/2008 5 5. I have considered the submissions made by the petitioner and also the standing counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the Panchayat. In so far as the paucity of time pleaded by the petitioner, I must say that , I do not find any substance in the contention. This is for the reason that, though initially by Ext.P3, the petitioner was granted only 3 days time which included a Sunday and a Hartal day, by Ext.R1 is dated 24.7.2008, at his request the Panchayat had extended time till 27.8.2008. If that be so, petitioner had sufficient time to complete the requirements of Ext.P3. That apart in this writ petition filed on 30th July, 2008, the petitioner has not even mentioned about the filing of the request for enlargement of time by Ext.R1. Thus, since the Panchayat on their own extended time till 27.8.2007, the petitioner cannot complain of paucity of time to comply with Ext.P3. 6. What remains is the objection of the petitioner regarding the demand of the Panchayat for remitting 50% of WP(c).No.23157/2008 6 the bid amount. As already noticed, it is following Ext.P2 judgment of this court that the Panchayat was required to execute the agreement with the petitioner. In terms of the schedule fixed in Ext.P1, by the time the agreement is executed, the bidder should have paid 50% of the amount due. If that be so, I cannot find fault with the Panchayat in directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount due. 7. Similar is the case with the direction to execute the agreement on a stamp paper worth 5% of the contract value, which also cannot be objected in the light of clause 8 of Ext.P1. On the whole, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no arbitrariness on the part of the Panchayat warranting interference. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.23157/2008 7