IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO.12838 OF 2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. participation in auction and deposit made. (Para 1) |
| 2. legal representation and counter-affidavit response. (Para 2) |
| 3. reasons for re-auction and appointment of responsible parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. court's decision on refund entitlements and re-auction validity. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had participated in an auction conducted by the respondent panchayat for the right to collect fee at the Kallachi fish market. At that point of time, he had made a deposit of Rs.5,000/-, while participating in the auction. Petitioner was the highest bidder, and he had deposited Rs.17,700/-, at the time of the auction. Though, the afore amount was collected and time was also granted to pay the balance, the petitioner states that, without permitting the petitioner to remit the balance, the panchayat sought to cancel the auction and re-tender the work. It is seeking to challenge the afore action, as well as for a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.17,700/-, remitted by the petitioner as above, the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition.
2. Heard Sri.M. Sasindran, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.R. Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein.
3. A counter affidavit dated 13.09.2023 is filed on behalf of the respondent panchayat. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the panchayat has decided to re-auction "only to obtain better price so as to augment the financial condition of the Panchayat." In other words, the panchayat had decided to re-auction the work on their own. The panchayat also admits that after the re-auction, one Sri.Haris Puthenpurayil has been entrusted with the work.
4. However, since the afore Sri.Haris did not come forward, the panchayat states that they have decided to conduct another re-auction.
5. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that, though the petitioner cannot seek to challenge the steps taken by the panchayat for the re-auction, the petitioner is entitled to seek the return of the amounts of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.17,700/-, deposited by him.
In these circumstances, the captioned writ petition would stand allowed, directing the respondent panchayat to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)
and Rs.17,700/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand seven hundred only), deposited by the petitioner, as evidence by Exts.P2 and P3, within a period of eight weeks from today.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.