Kerala High Court
V.M.Ramadas @ Unni vs Kochi Municipal Corporation on 3 August, 2016
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 25596 of 2016 (Y)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
V.M.RAMADAS @ UNNI,
AGED:62 YEARS, S/O LATE MADHAVAN,
VADAKKEDATHU VEEDU AT PRESENT
RESIDING AT SHAKEELA MANZIL,
P.J.ANTONY ROAD, PACHALAM,KOCHI-682 012.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.
2. KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, CORPORATION OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN, SC
SRI.P.K.SOYUZ, SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 25596 of 2016 (Y)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT:P1 FRONT PAGE OF THE BOOKLET PUBLISHED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE INAUGURATION OF
"SANTHIKAVADOM,"
EXHIBIT:P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION
PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY, DTD. 21/7/16
EXHIBIT:P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TENDER FROM ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE TENDER
EXHIBIT:P4 TREU PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BYE LAW FORMULATED BY
THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT:P5 TRUE COPY PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT, DTD. 26/7/16
EXHIBIT:P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE "HAINDAVA SMASANAM SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI"
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. NIL
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 25596 of 2016
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P4. Ext.P2 is a publication by which the tenders had been invited in the matter relating to conduct of a crematorium at Pachalam. Ext.P4 is a guidelines issued by the Municipal Corporation on 16.2.2016 for the purpose of running the crematorium at Pachalam. The main contention urged by the petitioner is the Ext.P4 guidelines or bylaw had not been approved.
2. Petitioner is a person who is interested in the running of the crematorium, insofar as he had been running the crematorium for the last 20 years. According to him, his father was managing the crematorium from 1968 onwards.
3. Be that as it may, Ext.P2 is only a publication by which the Corporation had decided to invite tenders for running of the crematorium. Petitioner by himself cannot have W.P.(C) No. 25596 of 2016 -2- any legal right to demand that he alone should be permitted to run the crematorium nor he can challenge the notice inviting tenders. Merely for the reason that the guidelines or the bylaw claimed by the Corporation had not been approved, by itself, is not a ground to restrain the Corporation from inviting tenders. Even without a bylaw, the Corporation being a Local Self Government Institution is entitled to invite tenders.
Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Exts.P2 and P4. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Scl/03.08.2016