## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942**
## **WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
## **PETITIONER:**
**TOMS P.J AGED 52 YEARS S/O.JOB, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, NALPATHADY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM- 682006.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.V.S.SREEJITH SRI.K.SUNIL SMT.M.ARDRA KRISHNAN SMT.ALEENA MARIA JOSE SMT.SUSAN JACOB (S-3481) SHRI.ANEESH K.R SHRI.BENRAJ K.R.**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
**1 GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 RETHISH.R., AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, K.K.F COLONY, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI- 682020.**
**3 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT FARM TOURISM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.E1313, SOUTH PARAVUR P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM- 682307, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN P. VARGHESE**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
2
## **J U D G M E N T**
Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 proceedings on the ground that the premises mentioned therein are leased out to the 3[rd] respondent without inviting any tender.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 12.02.2019 he had submitted an application Ext.P1 before the GCDA requesting for allotment of the vacant space adjoining the stair case in his two storied building on the side of Panampilly Nagar Road. After correspondence between the Estate Department and Revenue Department, Engineering and Planning Department of the GCDA in Exts.P2 to P5 letters, in respect of the alleged availability of space and the feasibility of its allotment, it is stated that a joint inspection of the site was scheduled, pointing out that the said space near stair case was not being leased out. It is stated that while proceedings were thus in progress, based
**WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
3
on the application of the petitioner, certain other applications were also there for allotment of the said space in May, 2019 and July, 2019. It is stated that though the Estate wing had sought for the opinion of the Revenue wing as to the feasibility of inviting tenders and as to the allotment of the said vacant space, as per Ext.P9 note, the Executive Council of the first respondent on 20.11.2019, as per Ext.P11 decided to allot the said space to the 3[rd] respondent.
3. It is stated that on the basis of the decision in Ext.P11 the space was already allotted to the 3[rd] respondent who has entered into an agreement with the 1[st] respondent.
4. Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 decision pointing out that when a public authority is letting out its space or shop room it should be only after inviting tenders adopting a transparent procedure.
5. The GCDA has filed a statement according to which the space which has been allotted based on
**WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
4
Ext.P11 does not have a building number. While admitting the proceedings in Exts.P2 to P11 pursuant to the receipt of the application from petitioner, it
is stated that the said space was never being allotted to any body; it is a space in the common area below the stair case having 46.5 Square Feet, which cannot be got numbered; a space without building number cannot be put in auction or tendered as it is not a room for allotment on permanent basis as per the rules and regulations of GCDA. It is stated that after considering all these aspects, executive committee has as per Ext.R1(c) resolution dated 27.11.2019 decided to let out the same to the third respondent-the District Farm Tourism Co-operative Society, provisionally on a rent at the rate of Rs.25 per Square Feet on condition that the Society has to affix a shutter in the wall without causing damage to the existing building, under the supervision of the Engineering Department. It is also stated that the Executive Committee has taken the
**WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
5
decision taking note of the fact that 3[rd] respondent is a Farm Society. It is stated that based on Ext.R1(c) resolution, a total area of 46.5 Sq. Feet is provisionally allotted to the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.R1(d) order dated 29.01.2020.
6. The 3[rd] respondent has also filed a statement. The 3[rd] respondent has stated that it is a Society conducting a Farm at Kanjiramattom and the Farm products are being sold by Society in various places and the Society had submitted an application on 02.06.2019 to the 1[st] respondent in order to have an outlet of the Society at Panampally Nagar and Ext.R3(b) application was submitted to the 1[st] respondent on 02.06.2019 on coming to know about the availability of the space under the first respondent. Producing Annexure R3(d) order dated 29.01.2020 by which the space has been allotted on the basis of Ext.P11 proceedings, it is stated that the 3[rd] respondent has remitted a sum of Rs.15,382/- on 07.02.2020 and removed the existing wall placing
**WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
6
shutter. It is also stated that the allotment is made provisionally for a period of six months on 29.01.2020 and therefore the writ petition has become infructuous according to the 3[rd] respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that the 3[rd] respondent has already started functioning after incurring huge expenditure and being a Society selling Farm products there was nothing wrong on the part of the first respondent in allotting the space.
8. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.
9. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors** [2011 (5) SCC 29], the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there should be transparency, whenever allotments of land or any type of largess of the State is made and any activity should be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India and allotment should be only after giving public notice.
**WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
7
10. Though it is seen that petitioner had submitted his application for allotting the space even in the absence of any notice inviting tender and he has filed this writ petition when the very same space was seen allotted to the 3[rd] respondent, overlooking his application, the first respondent being an authority under the State is expected to act only in accordance with rules. As rightly contented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner once the property of the GCDA is decided to be allotted on rent, despite the fact that the space does not have a building number, it can only be done after affording an opportunity to all concerned to participate in the process of allotment, for which there should be a transparent procedure. As long as there is no provision of law which permits the GCDA to make such allotments to farm societies like 3rd respondent without any tender, the decision of the 1[st] respondent to allot the space in its building to the Society without adopting any process known to law shall
**WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
8
stand set aside. At any rate, as the 3[rd] respondent has already started functioning, it shall be allowed to continue, till the proceedings for a tender for allotment of the space is finalised, in case the 1[st] respondent has decided to extend the duration of the allotment. However the proceeding for tender for allotment of the said space shall be commenced and completed within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment provided the 1[st] respondent decides to continue with provisional allotment of the space involved.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE**
AS
**WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
9
## **APPENDIX**
**PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
- **EXHIBIT P1**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT**
- **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE ESTATE WING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE REVENUE WING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE WING TO THE ESTATE WING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.3.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.3.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAINDER DATED 8.5.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT**
- **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.5.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.5.2019 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT**
- **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT**
- **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 1.8.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT**
- **EXHIBIT P10**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SHEET OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE ALLOTMENT OF THE**
**WP(C).No.35735 OF 2019(N)**
10
## **SUBJECT SHOP ROOM DATED 30.8.2019**
**EXHIBIT P11**
**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2019**
## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:**
- **ANNEXURE R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.8.2019 OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT FARM TOURISM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.E 1313.**
- **ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.12/2019 OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT FARM TOURISM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.E 1313.**
- **ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.136/2019-20 OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF GCDA**
- **ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.8129/ESTATE/B-2/2019/GCDA DATED 29.1.2020**
- **ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CLAUSE III OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT FARM TOURISM SOCIETY DEALS.**
- **ANNEXURE R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 2.6.2019**
**ANNEXURE R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.8.2019 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2020**
