IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21247 of 2010(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.P.SARASAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN, MEKKEVELIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR KARA, NADAKKAVU.P.O, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY MR.K.S.BABU, ADVOCATE. MS.N.SUDHA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.V.M.KURIAN, SC FOR R1. MS.K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21247 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is the auction purchaser of the right to collect toll/fee in the bus stand of Tripunithura Municipality during the financial year commencing from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the tender notification. According to the petitioner, the fee prescribed per bus per day as notified therein is Rs.15/-. The grievance raised by the petitioner is against the retender notification Exhibit P11 with regard to the very same tender. 2. The petitioner's case is that he had fulfilled all the conditions in terms of the agreement executed and had started collections also. But, the bus operators objected the fixation of fee as Rs.15/- and thus a dispute arose between the bus operators and the Municipality. The petitioner had to move the 1st respondent by Exhibit P4 representation. He was given a W.P.(C) No.21247/2010 2 reply as per Exhibit P5 stating that the representation dated 03.05.2010 is contrary to the tender documents. Show cause notice was issued and finally the tender itself has been terminated by the Municipality. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that in the tender document, the rate prescribed is only Rs.10/- per bus and actually a reference to Exhibit P1 shows that there is a correction of the amount, and it is therefore submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the real facts. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the rate per bus was only Rs.10/- even during the previous year and even going by the terms of the retender also, the same rate has been fixed by the Municipality. It is therefore, pointed out that the attempt of the petitioner is to get an unlawful gain by manipulating the records. In that view of the matter, as the rate itself is disputed by the Municipality, the matter requires resolution of such dispute by taking evidence. The remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere and W.P.(C) No.21247/2010 3 this writ petition is therefore dismissed without prejudice to the right if any to approach other forums. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp