MANU JOHN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the Writ Petition are challenging the finalisation of a tender process by the Respondents 4 and 5 pursuant to Exhibit P1 tender notification.

(2.) The Life Insurance Corporation of India (2nd Respondent herein), is a statutory corporation. The 4th Respondent floated a tender on 7.6.2020, for purchase of vacant land/plots from individuals/firms at locations in Adoor and Changanacherry, for the construction of branch buildings of the 2nd Respondent. Ext.P1 is the copy of the notification published in newspaper. As per Exhibit P1, bidders having plot/vacant land within the Municipal limits and within a radius of 3 km from the main bus stop are eligible to apply. It is also mentioned that the land should be located preferably near to the main market area, at a prime location, near public amenities like banks, post office, bus stop etc. In order to maintain this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is stated in the Writ petition that the 1st petitioner is a life insurance policy holder. Exhibit P3 policy is produced to prove the above fact. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of a property having an extent of 20.23 ares in Sy. No. 314/11 in Block  No. 16 of Earathu village in Adoor taluk in Pathanamthitta district. Exhibit P4 basic tax receipt is produced to prove the above aspect. It is stated that the 1st petitioner being a policyholder is interested in the affairs of the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd petitioner being a landowner is interested in the bid process. The case of the petitioners is that the Respondents are proposing to purchase property situated outside the Municipal area in violation of the tender conditions and that if it had been made clear in the tender notification that lands can also be situated outside the Municipal area, there would have been more participation in the tender process and the 2nd petitioner could also have participated. There are allegations made in the Writ petition regarding corruption, malafides and siphoning off of public money apart from the grounds of arbitrariness and illegality.

(3.) The Respondents 2 to 5 filed a counter affidavit, contending that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the Writ Petition. It is contended that the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. It is stated that after the opening of the technical bid, the committee constituted for the purpose of assessing the suitability of the properties visited the plots on 25.11.2020 and found that the lowest bid was eligible for finalisation. It is only after the entire process was finalised that the petitioners approached the Court. It is further contended that the actions of the Respondents 2 to 5, though by an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, insofar as the actions challenged are in the realm of contract and the Respondents 2 to 5 are not performing any public duty. It is further contended that the petitioners are not entitled to seek a Writ of mandamus insofar as the petitioners do not have any statutory right and the Respondents 2 to 5 do not have any statutory duty corresponding to such a right, warranting the issuance of a Writ of mandamus. On facts it is submitted that the 1st petitioner who claims to be a policyholder, cannot be treated as a policyholder since the policy referred to by him had lapsed with effect from November, 2015. Regarding the 2nd petitioner, it is submitted that he did not respond to Exhibit P1 tender notice and as such he cannot challenge the action of the respondents. The respondents have produced Ext. R4(a) along with the counter affidavit which is the tender notice uploaded in the website of the 2nd respondent and it is contended that the notification did not contain a condition that the property should be within the municipal limits and that by placing reliance merely on Ext.P1, it cannot be concluded that only persons who had land within Municipal limits could have responded to the tender notice. The details of the bids received have been stated in the counter affidavit and the locational advantage and the price advantage with regard to the property that was selected has been stated in detail. The counter affidavit also states that the 2nd petitioner had not responded to the tender notice, and even if he had responded the property that belongs to him lies 5 km away from Adoor K.S.R.T.C. bus station and that the plot is very far away from important places like market and bus station and that the road in front of the property is too narrow. On comparison, the property that has been chosen is stated to be just 2 km away from Adoor K.S.R.T.C. bus station and that the plot is just outside the Municipal limits and the area opposite the plot is within the Municipal area. The Respondents also produced Exhibit R4(c) which is the valuation report of the approved Engineer, which says that the property is located by the side of Kayamkulam-Punalur Highway and that the recent transaction that happened in the locality recorded a price of Rs.14 lakhs/cent.