Kerala High Court
Puthur Vanitha Co-Operative Society ... vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 15547 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:71675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15547 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PUTHUR VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KERALA CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, HAVING REGISTRATION NO.
R.1132, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OMANA, AGED 57
YEARS, W/O. JOHNY, VETTUKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 680014
BY ADVS. SMT.SENITTA P. JOJO
SMT.VIDHUNA NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680001
2 SECRETARY,
THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680001
3 UBAIDULLAHI A.H
S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, 20/554, PUTHUPALLY STREET,
NOORANI POST, PALAKKAD -678004 IS IMPLEADED AS
ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 19/05/2025 IN
I.A NO.1/2025 IN WP(C)15547/2025
BY ADVS. SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15547 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:71675
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the current licensee, who is
running and maintaining the comfort stations under the 1st
respondent-Municipal Corporation. By Ext.P1
tender/auction notice, the 1st respondent has invited
tenders to operate and maintain its comfort stations for the
next term. In response to Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner had
submitted Ext.P2 tender form and Ext.P3 demand draft for
Rs.10,00,000/- towards security deposit. As the petitioner
was the sole bidder in the tender, the 1st respondent
decided to call for a fresh tender/auction as per Ext.P5
proceedings. As per the tender conditions, bidders can
either can submit their bids or participate in the open
auction. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 bid by quoting
Rs.40,26,000/- for the contract. He was again the sole
bidder. Surprisingly, the 2nd respondent awarded the
contract to the additional 3rd respondent, alleging that he
2025:KER:71675
had quoted Rs.46,50,000/-. In fact, the petitioner had
quoted Rs.47,00,000/- in the auction, but the same was not
considered. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P7
complaint to the 2nd respondent, the same has not been
considered. The entire tender proceedings are smacked
with mala fides and arbitrariness. Hence, the writ
petition.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents 1 and 2, it is contended that the 1 st
respondent had published Ext.P1 tender notice to manage
its comfort stations. However, as the petitioner was the
sole bidder, by Ext.P5 proceedings, it was decided to call
for a fresh tender. As per the terms and conditions of the
tender, the bidder had to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- each as
security deposit, to participate in both the tender and the
auction. The petitioner had only deposited Rs.10,00,000/-
as security deposit with Ext.P6 tender form, to participate
in the tender. Nevertheless, the petitioner attempted to
participate in the auction on the strength of the security
2025:KER:71675
deposit submitted with the tender form. But, he was not
permitted to participate in the auction. In the auction, the
additional 3rd respondent had quoted Rs.46,50,000/- for the
contract, which was higher than the amount quoted by the
petitioner in the tender form. Accordingly, the tender was
awarded to the additional 3rd respondent. There is no
illegality in the contract being awarded to the additional
3rd respondent.
3. The additional 3rd respondent has filed a
counter affidavit stating that he had participated in the
auction after depositing Rs.10,00,000/- as security deposit.
The tender process was finalised after following the
procedure as contemplated under Ext.P5 tender
proceedings. There is no illegality in the contract being
awarded to him.
4. Heard; the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing
for the additional 3rd respondent .
2025:KER:71675
5. As per Ext.P5 tender proceedings, the
tender is a two-way process i.e., the bidders can either
participate in the tender or in the auction, but subject to
the condition that the participant submits a security
deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- each, to participate in both the
tender and the auction.
6. Indisputably, the petitioner had only
submitted Ext.P6 tender form and a security deposit of
Rs.10,00,000/-. He had not furnished a separate security
deposit to participate in the auction. Therefore, the action
of the 2nd respondent in not permitting the petitioner to
participate in the auction is justifiable.
7. It is not in dispute that the additional 3 rd
respondent quoted Rs.46,50,000/- in the auction and the
petitioner had quoted Rs.40,26,000/- in Ext.P6 tender form.
Hence, the petitioner was L2 and the additional 3 rd
respondent was L1 in the tender/auction proceedings. I do
not find any arbitrariness or illegality in the tender being
awarded to the additional 3rd respondent.
2025:KER:71675
8. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd and another [(2016) 16
SCC 818], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expounded the
law that the decision to accept or reject the bid should not
be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the
decision-making process is arbitrary or irrational to an
extent that no responsible authority could have reached
such a decision. The constitutional courts are directed to
exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative
decision, and not substitute its views with that of the
administrative authority.
9. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State
of Karnataka and others [(2012) 8 SCC 216], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or
contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review,
should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by
the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or
whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary
and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such
that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in
accordance with relevant law could have reached"? and
2025:KER:71675
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?
If the answers to the above questions are in the negative,
then there should be no interference under Article 226".
On a consideration of the facts, the materials on
record, and the rival submissions made across the Bar, I do
not find any illegality in the tender being awarded to the
additional 3rd respondent. The writ petition is devoid of any
merits and liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:71675
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15547/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER/ AUCTION NOTICE
DATED 19/02/2025
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER FORM DATED
07/03/2025
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT NO. 027143
DATED 05/03/2025 OF THE KERALA STATE CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 04/03/2025 ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RE-TENDER/ RE-AUCTION
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION DATED 22/03/2025
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER FORM SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 28/03/2025
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28/03/2025
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28/03/2025
ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT
TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 DATED 19/06/2025
ALONG WITH ITS REPLY DATED 15/07/2025
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE -R1(a) A COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DIARY OF
RECORDING AUCTION PROCEEDINGS DATED
28.03.2025
