P.K. APPUKUTTAN Vs. THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed challenging an auction that was scheduled to be held on 27/03/2009 in respect of a room in a building owned by the Guruvayoor Municipality. Today when the case was taken up, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent states that auction was held on 27/03/2009 and that the highest bid offered was Rs. 16,60,605/ -. The petitioner also had participated in the auction and had offered only an amount of Rs. 3,00,301/ -. Though, the Municipality had confirmed the auction in favour of the highest bidder, in the meanwhile, the petitioner had approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and had obtained an order requiring the Municipality to maintain status quo. Therefore, Municipality could not induct the successful bidder into the licensed premises with effect from 01/04/2009, the date on which the licence period was to commence.

(3.) IT is while matters stand thus that today when the matter came up, learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition. Although, the petitioner, being the master of the litigation, is entitled to seek withdrawal of the writ petition, fact remains that on account of the interim orders passed at the instance of the petitioner, the Municipality has suffered considerable loss since it was prevented from inducting the licensee into the premises. The situation in this case is one in which this Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to the Municipality by force of the interim orders passed in this writ petition. Therefore any undesired or unfair advantage gained by the petitioner must be neutralised. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. : 2003 (8) SCC 648, it was held by the Apex Court that for attracting the applicability of restitution, the test is whether on account of an act of the party persuading the Court to pass an order held at the end unsustainable, has resulted in one party suffering an impoverishment, which it would not have suffered, but for the order of the Court and the act of such party. It was further held that in such cases, there is nothing wrong in the injured party demanding to be placed in the same position in which he would have been had the Court not intervened by its interim order and that in such cases the injury caused shall be undone. Paragraph 28 of the judgment being relevant is extracted below for reference.