Kerala High Court
WP(C)/42121/2017 of KAIPUZHA COCONUT PRODUCER Vs KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 42121 of 2017 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- KAIPUZHA COCONUT PRODUCER COMPANY LTD, PADINJATTAKKARA P.O.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 42121 of 2017 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- KAIPUZHA COCONUT PRODUCER COMPANY LTD, PADINJATTAKKARA P.O., THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM 690 524 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHAJAHAN KANJIRAVILAYIL, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, KANJIRAVILAYIL HOUSE, PADINJATTAKKARA P.O., THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM 690 524.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA)
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
BY ADVS.SRI.SIBY J.MONIPPALLY
SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 42121 of 2017 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RDRESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RENEWING THE LICENSE DATED 19.04.2016.
EXHIBIT P2A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LICENSE DEED EXECUTED BY THEPETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2015.
EXHIBIT P3A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR PAYMENT OF HALF YEARLY LICENSE FEEDATED 7.1.2017.
EXHIBIT P4A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR PAYMENT OF HALF YEARLY LICENSE FEEDATED 19.5.2017.
EXHIBIT P5A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 13.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P6A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AUCTION/TENDER NOTICE ISSUEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P7A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY THECHAIMAN OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
Pn
P. A. TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.42121 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be running a Neera stall at the KSRTC Bus station in Karunagappilly. According to him, hehas been conducting the shop under a valid license for the lastthree years and that when tender proceedings were initiatedfor this year, he had made a quote, which according to himwas the highest. His grievance appears to be that eventhough he was the tenderer who quoted the highest bid, therespondents did not accept the said bid; but chose to cancelthe tender itself with the intention of calling for a fresh tenderprocess. The petitioner says that this stand of the respondentsis illegal and he prays that the respondents be directed toaccept his tender, because it is the highest.
2. I have heard Sri.M.A.Abdul Hakhim, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counselappearing for the KSRTC.
3. According to the learned Standing Counsel, eventhough tender processes were initiated, a decision was takenby the competent Authority, not to accept the bid offered by the petitioner or by anybody else, since the quote by all of themwere much lower than the threshold figures that they had inmind. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the KSRTChas, therefore, now decided to call for a fresh tendering process.
4. I have considered the above submissions and I am of theview that the petitioner cannot seek a vested right to have hisbid accepted because the settled law is that such person does notobtain any right until and unless his bid is accepted and acontract is entered into. In such view of the matter, the prayersmade in the writ petition cannot be countenanced. That beingso, I am guided to consider whether the petitioner can beallowed to continue with the operation of Kiosk on the presentcontract that he had entered with the KSRTC last year, on thespecific condition that he shall evict himself as soon as the afresh bidder is identified by the KSRTC through the freshprocess. Needless to say, that the petitioner would also beentitled to participate in the fresh tendering process and if he isfound to be the qualified tenderer, the KSRTC will be entitled toenter into a contract with him, thus allowing him to continue hisstall.
In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take part in the freshtendering process to be initiated by the KSRTC and I furtherdirect the respondents not to evict the petitioner and to allowhim to conduct the stall purely as on temporary measure, on thesame terms as are fixed between them as per the contract of theprevious year, subject to the finalisation of the fresh tenderproceedings.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE
sm/