The issue in the present writ petition concerns itself with the desirability of determining the physical location of lottery stalls in the respondent bus stations as per the discretion of the authorities concerned only after the bidding process is completed. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a lottery agent having a valid license till 31.12.2014, as could be seen from Exhibit P1. Recently the respondent corporation issued Exhibit P2 notification calling for tenders to run lottery stalls for a period of one year in 59 bus stations across the State on payment of licence fee on monthly basis. Clause (k) of the said Exhibit P2 is assailed in the present notification as being arbitrary.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that Clause (k) grants unlimited and arbitrary discretion to the respondent authorities to decide the location of the lottery stall in the bus station, pertinently, only after the bidding process is over. According to him, at the time of bidding, there is no way a prospective bidder could ascertain the exact location of the lottery stall. The learned counsel has also submitted that visibility and accessibility are quite essential for business, and in the absence of information regarding the exact location where the lottery stall could be had, it is very difficult for the prospective bidder to ascertain the commercial viability of the proposal and thereby it is very difficult to ascertain to what extent the bid could be made.
4. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to Exhibit P4 and has pointed out that on an earlier occasion when the respondent corporation called for bids with regard to other businesses to be established in the bus stations of the respondent corporation, detailed maps have been attached to the notification specifying the location where each shop was to be located. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent authorities ought to have followed the same procedure in the present instance as well. Eventually, the learned counsel has submitted that if Clause (k) is allowed to stand, it gives rise to unhealthy atmosphere of haggling over the issue of location of the stall with the authorities and the entire business prospects of the bidder would be dependent on the sweet will of the authorities. Accordingly, the learned counsel urges this Court to set aside the notification to the extent of Clause (k) and direct the respondent authorities to notify beforehand the location of each lottery stall well in advance before they could receive the bid offers.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation, on the other hand, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel, having initially taken time to get instructions, the very next day, i.e. today, filed a counter affidavit placing on record the stand of the respondent corporation.
6. According to the learned Standing Counsel, out of 59 bus stations, in 55 places presently lottery stalls are functioning. In so far as those bus stations are concerned, the authorities, as a matter of policy, have decided to continue the stalls in the same places even for the successful bidders under Exhibit P2 notification. With regard to the rest of the four bus stations, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that sketches indicating the places earmarked for establishing stalls have already been made available in the corporation's unit offices concerned. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel has urged this Court not to interdict the tender process, inasmuch as even notifying Exhibit P1 cost the corporation more than one and half lakh rupees.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, apart from perusing the record.
8. The issue raised by the petitioner may not detain the Court for long. To begin with it may be appropriate to examine Clause (k) of Exhibit P2, which reads as follows:
(k) License is bound to construct the stall at the place as directed by the Corporation at his own expenses and the same shall be removed on expiry of the license period on the day as directed by the corporation. The expenses so incurred will not be borne by the Corporation.
9. On appreciation of the rival submissions, and after perusing Clause (k) of the notification, it can be seen that there is an element of justification in the contention of the petitioner that unless the prospective bidders know in advance the physical location of the lottery stalls, it is very difficult for them to ascertain the commercial viability of bidding for a particular stall. Once the prospective bidder has to opt for any particular bus station by quoting a particular sum as license fee, for whatever reason if the authorities, in the light of Clause (k) of Exhibit P1 notification, are to assign the place which is either not readily accessible or having not much visibility, it is certainly going to be very difficult for the prospective bidder to sustain the offer he has come to quote.
10. As could be seen, the petitioner’s contention further gets bolstered in the face of the fact that on earlier occasions the respondent corporation, as evident from Exhibit P4, adopted a method of earmarking the shops to be established in advance by displaying a sketch made accessible to all persons concerned. The authorities could have undertaken the same exercise in the present instance too.
11. Be that as it may, with appreciable alacrity and readiness the respondent authorities have made their stand clear in the counter affidavit filed today. This Court feels it appropriate to have a word of appreciation placed on record for the diligence exercised by the authorities in resolving the issue by filing the counter affidavit in less than 24 hours and expressing its willing to have the adjudication on merits without insisting on any technicalities.
12. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation, it has stated thus:
“(6) I respectfully submit that in respect of all the stalls mentioned in Exhibit P2, the space/spot has already been located by the Corporation and out of the 59 stalls, in 55 places, presently lottery stalls are functioning. With regard to other four places, viz. Kanhangad, Payyannur, Mananthavady and Kasargod, space for the lottery stall is earmarked and sketch is available with the concerned unit office. Therefore contention of the petitioner that the spot of the stall has not been fixed by the Corporation is not correct and denied. That apart, till the time petitioner has not approached the respondent requiring to inspect the place of lottery stalls. That apart, as per Exhibit P2, tender has been invited for giving licence to 59 stalls all over Kerala and it is practically impossible to annex the exact place of the stalls along with tender notification ...”
13. Taking into account what has been stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, and especially taking into account the above averments of the Corporation spelt out in its counter affidavit, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition extending the last date for receiving the bids by one more week, since as per Exhibit P1 notification it has to come to an end today. Given the nature of relief to be granted, the last date to receive the application is required to be extended across the board to the benefit of all prospective bidders, apart from the petitioner.
14. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court holds that Clause (k) of Exhibit P1 cannot be sustained to the extent of determining the physical location of the stalls after the bidding process is over. Consequently, this Court directs the respondent corporation to keep in display the sketches reflecting the physical space earmarked for the lottery stalls in the four bus stations, where so far no stalls have been established, apart from supplying the information to any prospective bidder, on his or her request, as to the physical location of the existing lottery stalls in the remaining 54 bus stations before the authorities could receive the bids. Since it essentially takes some more time for any of the prospective bidders to visit any of the bus stations for having the information regarding the location of the lottery stall, it is in the interest to justice to extend, and accordingly extended, the last date for receiving the bids by one more week, i.e. up to 28.10.2014. Thus, all the bids received on or before 28.10.2014 by the authorities shall be processed in accordance with Exhibit P2 tender conditions and other statutory stipulations, if any, governing the issue.
With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE