P.N.Ravindran, J.
A common issue arises in these writ petitions. They are therefore heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By a tender notification dated 11.9.2014, the Travancore Devaswom Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) invited tenders for the right to run among other things hotels, tea stalls and restaurants at Sabarimala, Pamba and Nilackal and also on the treak path between Pamba and Sannidhanam. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26026 of 2014 submitted his bid in respect of item No.45 namely, light refreshment stall. The minimum rate stipulated in the tender notification was Rs.56,79,000/-. The rate quoted by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26026 of 2014 was Rs.57,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's tender was the only tender in respect of item No.45. The Board thereupon decided to re-tender the right to run the said light refreshment stall. The petitioner did not participate in the re-tender. The highest bid received in the re-tender was from the additional fourth respondent, who had quoted Rs.60,00,007/-.
3. When W.P.(C) No.26026 of 2014 came up before us on 13.10.2014, it was brought to our notice by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Board that during the previous pilgrimage season the right to run the very same stall was sold in auction for Rs.66,00,150/-. Taking note of the difference in the price, we suo motu impleaded the successful bidder in the re-tender and served notice on him and directed the writ petition to be posted to today to decide the question whether an auction, in which the petitioner and the additional fourth respondent alone are permitted to participate, can be held. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the additional fourth respondent submitted that they have no objection in an auction being held in which the petitioner and the fourth respondent alone are permitted to participate. It was also agreed by and between the parties that the minimum upset price to be fixed for the auction should be Rs.60,00,007/-, the price quoted by the additional fourth respondent in the revised tender.
4. The dispute in W.P.(C) No.26511 of 2014 relates to Hotel No.2 at Manalpuram, which is item No.69 in the schedule to the tender notification dated 11.9.2014. During the previous pilgrimage season, the right to run the very same hotel was sold for Rs.81,00,000/-. In the current year, the rate quoted by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26511 of 2014 was only Rs.65,67,000/-. The Board thereupon decided to re-tender the right to run the Hotel. In the re-tender, the additional fourth respondent who had quoted Rs.65,75,000/- was the successful bidder. Since the difference in the price fetched in the original tender and in the re-tender was only Rs.8,000/-, as in W.P.(C) No.26026 of 2014, we suo motu impleaded the successful bidder in the re-tender and served notice on him and directed the writ petition to be posted to today. When the writ petition was called on for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the additional fourth respondent submitted that as in W.P.(C) No.26026 of 2014, an auction can be held in which the petitioner and the additional fourth respondent alone are permitted to participate fixing the upset price as Rs.65,75,000/- as agreed by and between the parties.
We accordingly dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct an auction of the right to run the aforesaid light refreshment stall/hotel in which the petitioners and the additional fourth respondents in these writ petitions alone are permitted to participate, fixing the upset price as indicated earlier. The auction shall be held without fail at 11 AM on 24.10.2014 in the presence of both parties in the chambers of the Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board.
Registry to issue certified copies of this judgment to learned counsel on both sides, if applied for, today itself.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps P.B.SURESH KUMAR, (JUDGE)