IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16847 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.PONNAPPAN, HARIBHAVAN, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.N.MAURICE VINCENT, SRI.P.K.SADANANDAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 9. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION OFFICE, THOTTAPPALLY, THOTTAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA - 688 547. 3. K.R.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAN, KODIVEEDU HOUSE, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA - 688 547. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16847/2011 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 13/10/2010. P2: COPY OF NOTIFICATION FOR QUOTATION NO.D.357/08/AEE/TPLY ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16847 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 is a re-auction notice for toll collection from vehicles entering into the Punnapra Fish Landing Centre for a period of 12 months. Petitioner participated in the auction, which was held on 18/9/2010 and had quoted `3,01,600/-. He was the highest bidder. Thereupon in terms of the conditions of Ext.P2, by notice dated 24/9/2010, petitioner was called upon to deposit 50% of the auction amount. However, petitioner remitted only an amount of `70,000/- and Ext.P1 is the temporary receipt issued on 13/10/2010. Subsequently, the tender was awarded to the 3rd respondent and it was thereupon that this writ petition was filed by the petitioner contending that being the highest bidder and having paid `70,000/-, the tender should not have been awarded to another person. 2. However, as already stated, the instructions of the learned Government Pleader is that against the tender conditions requiring remittance of 50% of the auction amount, which is evident from Ext.P2, petitioner remitted only `70,000/-. It is WPC No. 16847/11 :2 : stated that, therefore, by notice dated 27/10/2010, petitioner was asked to remit the balance amount, which notice was refused to be accepted by him. It is stated that by registered notice on 19/11/2010, petitioner was once again required to remit the balance amount, which direction was also not complied with. It is stated that in the aforesaid background, the tender was awarded to the second highest bidder (the 3rd respondent) on 3/12/2010. 3. Admittedly, therefore the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of Ext.P2 auction notice. He was given opportunities twice. But even thereafter, he committed default. In such circumstances, if the respondents have awarded the tender to the second highest bidder, no illegality can be found in their action. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp