RATHEESH M. Vs. UDAYANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition concerns P5(a) notice issued by the second respondent, the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat for assigning the right to operate the ferry service between Nerekadav Makkekadav across Vembanad Lake.

(2.) Nerekadav is a place falling within the jurisdiction of the first respondent Grama Panchayat and Makkekadav is a place falling within the jurisdiction of Thaikattussery Grama Panchayat. The ferry service between these two places is being operated under the supervision of a joint committee consisting of the elected members of both the Panchayats by inviting quotations and by conducting auction from among the eligible ferry operators. The right to operate the ferry service is assigned on an year to year basis by the Panchayats alternately. Pursuant to the decision taken by the joint committee, the second respondent has issued a notice inviting quotations on 12.02.2021 for assigning the right to operate the ferry for the year 2021-22. Ext.P1 is the notice issued by the second respondent in this regard. In terms of Ext.P1 notice, the ferry operator who is offering the highest amount is entitled to be assigned the right to conduct the ferry service, if he is not otherwise disqualified. The petitioner offered the highest amount in response to Ext.P1 notice. The second respondent accepted the offer made by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to appear before the second respondent with necessary documents to enter into the necessary agreement with the Panchayat before 3 p.m. on 24.02.2021. Ext.P3 is the communication issued by the second respondent to the petitioner in this regard. In terms of Ext.P3, the second respondent has also directed the petitioner to make available the documents referred to therein and deposit 25% of the amount offered by him on or before the said date. It is specified in Ext.P3 communication that if the petitioner does not comply with the requirement in the said communication, the right to operate the ferry service will be assigned to the ferry operator who has made the second highest offer, without further notice to the petitioner.

(3.) One of the documents directed to be produced in terms of Ext.P3 communication is stamp paper worth 1% of the amount offered for the purpose of entering into the agreement. It is alleged by the petitioner that he appeared before the second respondent on 24.02.2021 and pointed out to the second respondent that in terms of the provisions of the Stamp Act, the agreement can be executed in a stamp paper of Rs.200/- and stamp paper worth 1% of the offered amount is not necessary for the said purpose. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the second respondent then informed the petitioner that he needs to obtain legal advice on that aspect and permitted the petitioner to approach the second respondent for entering into the agreement as and when required to do so, after obtaining legal advice. It is further alleged by the petitioner that though he contacted the second respondent on several occasions thereafter, the second respondent did not permit the petitioner to enter into the agreement on the ground that, in view of the Code of Conduct in connection with the election to the State Legislative Assembly came into effect in the meanwhile, the agreement can be executed only after the election. It is stated by the petitioner that he has submitted Ext.P4 representation in the meanwhile requesting the second respondent to expedite the execution of the agreement and permit the petitioner to operate the ferry service. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that while he was awaiting a positive response from the second respondent on Ext.P4 representation, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5(a) notice inviting fresh quotations for operating the ferry service for the very same period. According to the petitioner, as the offer made by him was the highest in the process initiated in terms of Ext.P1 notice and as he was willing to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 notice and Ext.P3 communication, the Panchayat is not justified in inviting fresh quotations for operating the ferry service for the very same period. The petitioner, therefore, seeks orders quashing P5(a) notice and all further proceedings thereto. The petitioner also seeks directions to the first respondent to bring the proceedings initiated in terms of Ext.P1 notice to its logical end so as to enable the petitioner to operate the ferry service.