Kerala High Court
P.P. Ummerkoya vs The Secretary, Amarambalam Grama ... on 11 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 21307 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
P.P. UMMERKOYA
S/O. ABDU, PULLANIPUNKUZHI HOUSE,
POOKKOTTUMPADAM, NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SECRETARY, AMARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
POOKKOTTUMPADAM P.O - 679 332,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 AMARAMABLAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
POOKKOTTUMPADAM P.O - 679 332,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.M.P.PRABHAKARAN (PALAKKAD)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P. (C) No.21307 of 2018 2
EASWARAN S. , J.
-------------------------
W.P. (C) No.21307 of 2018
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April 2024
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 order and
also for a direction to the respondent Panchayath to sign the
agreement and hand over possession of Room No.15/489B to the
petitioner.
2. The facts in the writ petition discloses that the petitioner
was a successful bidder pursuant to Ext.P1 auction notice.
However, though the petitioner remitted the Bidders Security
Deposit, as per Ext.P2, the Panchayath, by Ext.P3 order, refused
to execute agreement stating that the amount of rent quoted by
the petitioner is too low.
3. When the writ petition came up for admission on
27.3.2018, this Court passed the following interim order.
" xxx
If any auction is conducted in the meanwhile, it will be
subject to the result of this writ petition."
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents in which it is stated that pursuant to Ext.P3, an
agreement has been entered into by the Panchayath with one
Mr. Jahangeer as per Ext.R1(b). Though the period fixed in
Ext.R1(b) has expired, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent panchayath submits that, in every year, the same is
being renewed with 5% increase in the rent amount.
5. On a consideration of the rival submissions made across
the Bar, this Court finds that none of the reliefs sought for in the
writ petition can be granted. It is now trite law that no writ of
mandamus could be issued to an authority to enter into a
contract against his own will. However, the petitioner would be
given liberty to move before the Panchayath if he is prepared to
offer adequate rent to the building and the Panchayath could
consider the same in accordance with law if it does not choose to
go for a public auction in future. Even assuming that the
Panchayath goes for a public auction, the petitioner will always
be at liberty to participate in such auction.
6. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to dismiss
the writ petition finding that the reliefs sought for in the writ
petition cannot be granted. However, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that Ext.P2 security deposit receipt reveals
that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the petitioner.
7. Though the writ petition is dismissed, the petitioner is
granted liberty to move the panchayath with an application for
release of the security deposit within a period of three weeks
from today. If any such application is filed, the Panchayath is
directed to release the security deposit without any delay, within
a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such
application.
Writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21307/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED
21/02/2018.
EXHIBIT -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF
DEPOSIT DATED 07/03/2018.
EXHIBIT - P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
