Luquman vs Palakkad Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 18527 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 18527 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 September, 2021

Kerala High Court

Luquman vs Palakkad Municipality on 8 September, 2021

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 17335 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

              LUQUMAN,
              AGED 41 YEARS
              S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, PARAPPATHIYIL HOUSE, VALLATHUR,
              PONMUDAM, MALAPPURAM-676 106.

              BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR



RESPONDENT:

              PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD,
              , PIN-678 001

              BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17335 OF 2021
                                      2

                               JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the

respondents to allot the first floor of the Stadium Bus Stand

Complex, Palakkad to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.16/- per sq.ft

pursuant to Ext.P1. The petitioner had also sought for direction to

keep in abeyance the decision to conduct auction/re-tender as per

Ext.P4.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Palakkad Municipality.

3. It is submitted that auction/tender had been held in

respect of the Stadium Bus Stand Complex of the Palakkad

Municipality on several occasions. However, there were no

bidders for the 1st and 2nd floors of the building. It is submitted

that the petitioner had submitted an offer to take out the 1 st floor

on rent for an amount of Rs.16/- per sq.ft and the respondent

acknowledged the receipt of the said offer by Ext.P1. It is

submitted that though the petitioner had made several requests

for allotment of the property on lease to him, no final orders have WP(C) NO. 17335 OF 2021

been passed. It is submitted that, in the meanwhile, a decision

had been taken to conduct a re-tender which was sought to be

kept in abeyance. Pursuant to an interim order dated 01.09.2021,

the auction had been conducted on 27.08.2021, there were no

bidders on the said auction as well.

4. A statement has been placed on record by the

respondent. It is stated therein as follows:-

"7. It is submitted that after ascertaining, that there is no response, the council had concluded that lack of public participation in the tender was due to the Covid situation and hence decided to invite fresh offer. In the offer that was held on 28-02-2020 one Sharafudeen had quoted an amount of Rs.14/- and the petitioner an amount of Rs.16/- per sq.feet. The said offers were placed before the council and since the rate quoted was much below the rate quoted by the Municipality, it was decided to invite retender. The said decision was taken by the council in Agenda No.29 at its meeting held on 22-07-2021. The same is challenged at the instance of the petitioner. However no fresh tenders were received.

8. It is submitted that even an undertaking of the government namely Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation had made an offer at the rate of Rs.25/- per WP(C) NO. 17335 OF 2021

sq.feet for occupying 7773 sq.feet in the first and second floor of the building (1523 sq.feet in the ground floor and 6250 sq.feet in the first floor). The said offer was made after getting the approval of the government. True copy of the letter dated 03-03-2020 issued by the Commissioner Civil Supplies Department to the Taluk Supply Officer, Palakkad is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R- 1(a) . The process for finding the same is going on."

5. It is further contended that the petitioner has absolutely

no right to contend that the premises should be allotted to him at

the very low rate of Rs.16/- per sq.ft and that in view of the

documents produced by the respondent, the issue will be

considered by the council of the Municipality and an appropriate

decision will be taken in this regard.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced on either

side, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot insist that the

property should be allotted to him on lease at the rates quoted by

him. However, it is also true that the property has been remaining

vacant since the construction of the building and that an

appropriate decision will have to be taken by the Municipality, WP(C) NO. 17335 OF 2021