GAZZAZ GLOBAL ADD VISION (P) LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2 to 4, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. The issues with respect to the awarding of the contract from the year 2008, subsequent extension up to 2012 recited to in the writ petition are all admittted by the respondent. Among other contentions it is stated that before the expiry of the period of licence fee, petitioner has applied for extension for a period of 5 years for erecting the advertisement board in the premises. Accordingly, the application was considered by the Finance Standing Committee of the Corporation and as per its resolution No.23 dated 30.04.2010, resolved to permit the petitioner to continue on licence for a further period of two years on condition that the petitioner agrees to enhancement of license fee, as decided by the Corporation from time to time and to agree that the assets will become the property of the Corporation on the expiry of the licence period. When the said conditions were put to the petitioner, he expressed his difficulty in agreeing with the condition that, the asset will become the property of the Corporation, but he agreed to dismantle the advertisement and the frame after the expiry of the license period without damaging the construction of the building. Petitioner has also agreed that the license fee can be enhanced at a rate of 10%. Accordingly, the Corporation has permitted him to continue till 28.08.2011 to display the advertisement board on license basis and the same was extended up to 31.3.201

(3.) After the expiry of the license period, Corporation directed the petitioner to remove the advertisement board, and took steps for fresh tender from the year 2012. Accordingly, an auction was conducted on 28.2012 and one Sri. Vincent Thomas, Manager, Shah Advertisement was the successful bidder. The possession of the premises was taken by the successful bidder and he erected advertisement boards, till 7.5.2015, for a license fee of Rs.30 lakhs per year. Petitioner also participated in the auction proceedings, but could not succeed. Aggrieved by the auction proceedings, and handing over the premises to the successful bidder, petitioner filed O.S.No.269/2012, arraying the Corporation of Kozhikode as the defendant. The said suit was filed praying inter alia for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants or its officers from entering into the plaint schedule property and to restrain the removal of advertisement hoarding erected by the petitioner. In I.A.2020/2012 filed along with the said suit, initially petitioner was granted with an order of injunction. However, later it was vacated as per Ext.R2(a) order. Even though petitioner has preferred a CMA, it was dismissed as per Ext.R2 (b) order, and the suit was finally dismissed as per Ext.R2 (c) order. According to the respondents, petitioner has suppressed these material facts from the purview of this Court. Other contentions are also raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed.