AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice K. Surendra Mohan
The petitioners are persons who had successfully bid the right to conduct vending of fish from stalls owned by the first respondent Panchayat
and a portion of the public market which is functioning in the ground floor of the shopping complex owned by the second respondent. The auction
was conducted on 10.8.2010 and the period of the auction was up to 31.3.2012. Though the petitioners had deposited the initial amount that they
had to deposit, they were not permitted to conduct vending of fish from the stalls auctioned in their favour. Therefore, they have filed this writ
petition. Though a subsequent auction was conducted on 29.12.2011 it was suspended because of objections from petitioners 1 and 2. When this
writ petition was taken up for hearing 16.11.2012, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the money deposited by them have been
remaining with the Panchayat for the past more than an year, they may at least be permitted to conduct fish vending in the stalls till 31.3.2013. The
said submission is repeated today also.
Adv. Liji J. Vadakedom appears for the second respondent. He points out that the petitioners have not deposited the balance amount that was
payable by them as per Ext.P1. They are claiming a right to conduct the fish stalls till 31.3.2013 solely on the basis of the initial amount paid by
them. Therefore, it is submitted that, since they had not paid the balance amount, their request cannot be considered. Though, the counsel for the
Panchayat was granted time on 16.11.2012 to get further instructions from the Panchayat, he has not been able to get any such further instructions
so far. Therefore, the counsel for the contesting parties have been heard.
It is not in dispute that though the petitioners had deposited the initial amount as per Ext.P1, no further intimation was given to them regarding the
right that was auctioned in their favour. They were also not put in possession of the shop rooms or permitted to conduct vending of fish for which
right, they had paid the amount. I notice that for the current year also no auction has been conducted for the period commencing from April, 2012
onwards. Conduct of a fresh auction now would not be beneficial to any one, including the Panchayat. The Panchayat would have to refund the
amount to the petitioners that has been remaining with the Panchayat for the past one year, with reasonable interest. It is, therefore, submitted that
the petitioners may be permitted to conduct fish vending from the stalls for the remaining period of the current year, till 31.3.2013. Such a course
would absolve the Panchayat of the liability of refunding the amount already deposited by the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners are willing to pay the balance amount due from them as per Ext.P1. Since the petitioners are the successful bidders at the
auction conducted by the Panchayat on 10.8.2010, I am of opinion that the above course can be adopted for the period commencing from
31.3.2013. The said course would benefit the Panchayat also financially, since the petitioners are willing to pay the balance amount. For the above
reasons, this writ petition is allowed as follows:
(i) The petitioners shall deposit with the first respondent, the balance amount due and payable by them towards their bid at the auction conducted
on 10.8.2010 and confirmed in their favour pursuant to Ext.P1, within a period of one week of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(ii) The second respondent shall put the petitioners in possession of the shop rooms that were auctioned in their favour on 10.8.2010 pursuant to
Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a week from the date of deposit of the balance amount by the petitioners. The
petitioners shall be entitled to conduct the vending of fish till 31.3.2013. The respondents shall be free to conduct a fresh auction for the period
commencing from 1.4.2013 by publishing a fresh notice of auction like Ext.P1.
(iii) Needless to observe that the petitioners would have to comply with other formalities like execution of an agreement, as stipulated by law.
