M.AYYAPPANKUTTY Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had acquired the right to run stall No. 12, two shop rooms and godown, situated in front of the new Gopuram at Malikappuram under the flyover, in the auction held on 12.11.2020. Being the highest bidder, he paid Rs.1,91,000/-, which includes bid amount of Rs. 1,51,000/- and associate remittances. According to the petitioner, when he went to take possession of the lease hold premises, to his utter dismay, found the same in the illegal occupation of some persons, so that he moved the Ext.P3 request before the fourth respondent seeking help to facilitate to run the business after evicting illegal occupants. The request was given on 26.11.2020. However, he was served with the Ext.P4 show cause notice stating that he had violated the terms of the agreement and sublet the premises. So he was asked to show cause why the auction shall not be cancelled. To this notice, he gave the Ext.P5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not considered the Ext.P5 appeal which prompted him to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The Standing Counsel for the respondents filed a statement denying the allegations in the petition. According to him, the writ petition is filed containing false statements, suppressing material facts. After bidding item No. 31, stall No. 12 with two rooms and a godown, the petitioner sublet the same to three persons by name Manian Pillai, Prasad and Arun; he had received Rs.2,00,000/- from Manian Pillai and Rs.1,50,000/- from Arun. The godown was given to Arun for conducting fruits and juice stall. Petitioner had obtained licence from Ranni-Perunad Grama Panchayat for conducting vessel shop and fruits and juice stall. Fruits and juice stall is not an item included in the tender schedule. Still such a licence was obtained for the purpose of subletting to third persons. On 23.11.2020, the fourth respondent received a complaint from one Manian Pillai stating that the petitioner, after obtaining Rs.2,00,000/- from him, had agreed to give two shop rooms to him for conducting the business, but gave only one room, that the other room and the godown were given to other persons. After getting knowledge about this, petitioner gave Ext.P3 complaint on 26.11.2020 alleging that his shop room was unauthorisedly occupied by some persons, requested to evict them and handover possession to him. Some other traders also filed complaint alleging unauthorised occupation of the shop rooms by Manian Pillai. On inspection by the fourth respondent, it was revealed that the two shop rooms were under the occupation of one Manian Pillai and Prasad respectively, and one Arun was conducting fruit and juice stall in the godown. They insisted that they would surrender the premises only after getting back the money paid to the petitioner. As the unauthorised occupants did not vacate the premises, the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, (Vigilance and Security). The Vigilance Officer, a Special Officer and the Assistant Executive Officer talked to the occupants and thereafter they left the premises and the possession of the stall was taken over by the respondents. Prasad who was occupying one of the rooms gave the Annexure R1(f) statement surrendering the shop room. The aforementioned Manian Pillai gave the Annexure R1(h) statement stating that the petitioner had given the two shop rooms to him after obtaining an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Sub Inspector of Police (Vigilance and Security) gave the Annexure R1(j) report stating that the petitioner had permitted unauthorised occupation by three persons in the premises obtained by him in auction; he had collected Rs.2,00,000/- from Manian Pillai for conducting vessel shop in the southern room, given the northern room to one Radhakrishnan for running soft drinks shop by collecting Rs.1,50,000/- and the godown was entrusted with one Prasad after collecting Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter dispute arose since the petitioner had promised Manian Pillai to give two shop rooms for Rs.2,00,000/-, but had actually given only one room and that made the latter to raise the issue. The enquiry report states that the petitioner in connivance with one Muhammed Suneer had made lobbying among the traders and dissuaded them from attending the auction and thereafter bid the right at a low price and then sublet the premises to three persons thereby caused monetary loss and inconveniences to the Devaswom Board. Thus the respondents have prayed for dismissing the petition.

(3.) Petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations in the statement of the respondents and reiterated his averments in the petition. According to him, he being the highest bidder is entitled to run the business, the reports appended to the statement of the counsel were given without notice to him. The Ext.P4 was also passed without hearing him.