Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TONY ANTONY, S/O. M.A.ANTONY versus THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


TONY ANTONY, S/O. M.A.ANTONY v. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT - WP(C) No. 33494 of 2006(K) [2007] RD-KL 4296 (26 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33494 of 2006(K)

1. TONY ANTONY, S/O. M.A.ANTONY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent

2. THE CHAIRMAN,

3. ANI CHACKO KOIKARA,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

For Respondent :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SC,GCDA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :26/02/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J

W.P(C).No.33494 OF 2006 (K)

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed on the ground that further action following with Exhibit P1 has not been taken and necessary agreements have not been executed by the G.C.D.A and possession has not been granted to the petitioner. The tendering of the said space stands stayed by an interim order dated 18/12/2006 which has been extended from time to time.

2. This writ petition is filed on 15/12/2006. Before that, on 14/07/2006, Exhibit R1(3) judgment was issued by this Court, directing the GCDA to have competitive bids for leasing out shop rooms. The said judgment is in public interest and, I am in complete agreement with the directions issued thereby and the principles on the basis of which that judgment has been issued. WPC.33494/2006(K)

3. The respondents have placed counter affidavit pointing that the allotment of the shop room to the petitioner was done by the then Secretary without taking appropriate orders from the competent.

4. It is also the admitted case that Exhibit P1 was issued without any competitive offers being invited for allotment of shop rooms in the shopping complex of the GCDA in the Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium. It needs no elaboration to notice that prime commercial holdings are a matter of genuine commercial attraction and it is in the interest of the GCDA and the public at large that there cannot be any allotment of any commercial space, without competitive bids being invited. In such circumstances, I do not find any ground to issue any direction, as sought for, compelling the GCDA to act on Exhibit P1 and make an agreement with the petitioner and put him in possession. Any such direction, in my considered view, would run contrary to public interest and the directions in Exhibit R1(3) judgment. WPC.33494/2006(K) In the result, while referring the relief sought for, it is directed that the amounts collected from the petitioner will be returned to the petitioner with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of deposit of such amount. GCDA shall, thereafter, auction out or invite tenders for the premises in question. It shall also follow the same yardstick for the other premises, as well. Following Exhibit R1(3) judgment, it would be sufficient for the GCDA to take further action on the basis of Exhibit P3 paper publication in that regard, as has already been made. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge ms


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.