Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 15906 OF 2024 PETITIONER:
DR. R.SATHEESH KUMAR AGED 47 YEARS CONSULTANT PAEDDIATRICIAN, B.R.HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE, NEDUNGOLAM, KOLLAM., PIN – 691334.
BY ADV M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOUTH PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM., PIN – 691301.
2 THE SECRETARY PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOUTH PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM., PIN – 691301.
BY ADV.SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.15906 of 2024 :2:
J U D G M E N T Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024 The petitioner is a practicing Consultant Paediatrician in B.R.Hospital, Nedungolam, Kollam and the Managing Director of the same hospital.
2.
The petitioner had participated in the auction conducted on 15.02.2024 by the respondents for affixing Advertisement Board in the Municipal Bus Stop and he secured the auction as highest bidder. The auction was confirmed by the Municipal Council on 17.02.2024.
3.
Then, the petitioner entered an agreement with the 1st respondent- Municipal Corporation for the said purpose.
The petitioner paid the entire bid amount as ₹37,586/- including GST to the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner affixed the advertisement board of his hospital spending huge money, in the Municipal Bus stop.
W.P.(C)No.15906 of 2024 :3:
4.
Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 21.03.2024 stating that the respondent reversed the bid agreement and terminated the agreement with the petitioner to affix the advertisement board as per the decision taken by the Municipal Council on 16.03.2024. The petitioner submitted a representation on 25.03.2024 before the 1st respondent to consider his grievances and to hear his part before reversing the order permitting the petitioner to affix the advertisement board of his hospital in Municipal Bus Stop.
5.
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent conducted hearing on 27.03.2024 through his authorised person, but no order has being passed till now. Aggrieved by non-consideration of the Ext.P1, the petitioner is approaching this Court, contends the Counsel for the petitioner.
6.
Heard.
7.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was the highest bidder in the auction and sale was confirmed in
W.P.(C)No.15906 of 2024 :4:
his favour. The payment made by the petitioner was accepted by the Municipality. According to the petitioner, the sale was reversed by the Municipality later. By the time, the petitioner had displayed the advertisement expending further amount.
8.
In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent should consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner in his Ext.P1 representation and take a decision in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Secretary to consider Ext.P1 representation and take appropriate decision thereon within a period of one month.
Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams
W.P.(C)No.15906 of 2024 :5:
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15906/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 25.03.2024.