Sarath Chandran v. Travancore Devaswom Board

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944** **W.P.(C)NO.14518 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **SARATH CHANDRAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O BABU CHANDRAN, SINDHU SADANAM, THUVAYOOR NORTH, MANAKALA P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691551 BY ADVS. C.S.MANU DILU JOSEPH C.A.ANUPAMAN T.B.SIVAPRASAD C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR MANJU E.R. ANANDHU SATHEESH MIDHUN M.SURESH ALINT JOSEPH PAUL JOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PIN - 695003** - **2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER SABARIMALA DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003** - **3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAMBA POLICE STATION, SABARIMALA, PIN - 689662 BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD** **SR GOVT. PLEADER - SRI S. RAJMOHAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J** . The petitioner, who is the successful bidder of Kuttaka item of collection of parking fee at Nilakkal for the period from 17.11.2021 to 31.10.2022, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to strictly prohibit parking of vehicles in Sabarimala at places other than the parking grounds at Nilakkal for which the parking fee contract for the period from 17.11.2021 to 31.10.2022 was entered into between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to collect parking fee for the vehicles parked at Pamba Hilltop and both sides of Pamba road, if such vehicles are permitted to be parked there by respondents 1 to 3, by express or implied action, till 31.10.2022 from the date of completion of the parking fee contract entered into between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent. 2. On 26.04.2022, when this writ petition came up for W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 3 admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the 3[rd] respondent. The learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board were directed to get instructions. 3. On 03.05.2022, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board were directed to get instructions from the 3[rd] respondent as to whether any unauthorised parking is permitted between Nilakkal and Pamba and also at the Hilltop. 4. On 19.05.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, from the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court found that the petitioner, who is the successful bidder of Kuthaka right to collect parking fee at Nilakkal for the period from 17.11.2021 to 31.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.83,15,000/-, has deposited a sum of Rs.41,57,500/- on 17.11.2021. Thereafter, he deposited a sum of Rs.7,17,800/- on 26.12.2021 and a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 04.01.2022. Now, the balance amount W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 4 payable comes to Rs.24,39,700/- together with penal interest as provided in the tender notification. 5. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer has filed an affidavit dated 18.05.2022, denying the allegations contained in the writ petition regarding unauthorised parking of vehicles on the road side from Nilakkal to Pamba and also at the Hilltop. According to the 3[rd] respondent, to ensure that no vehicles are parked on the road side from Nilakkal to Pamba, two police vehicles were continuously patrolling over the route. During Meenamasa Pooja and Medamasa Pooja, considering huge pilgrim flow to Sabarimala, two more patrolling vehicles and two motor bikes were introduced for patrolling to ensure that no vehicles are parked on either side of the road from Nilakkal to Pamba. In the affidavit, it is stated that, the 3[rd] respondent is yet to receive Ext.P8 representation made by the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Senior Government W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 5 Pleader for the 3[rd] respondent. 7. The 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board issued Ext.P1 e-tender notification dated 04.09.2021 inviting e- tenders for various Kuthaka items, including the collection of parking fee at Nilakkal, for the period from 11.11.2021 to 31.10.2022. In respect of certain Kuthaka items, including the collection of parking fee at Nilakkal, the 1[st] respondent Board issued Ext.P2 re-tender notification dated 04.10.2021. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent Board conducted a public auction of Kuthaka items on 16.11.2021, in which the petitioner was the highest bidder for the Kuthaka item - collection of parking fee at Nilakkal, who quoted Rs.83,15,000/-. The petitioner’s bid was accepted and accordingly, he deposited 50% of the bid amount, i.e., Rs.41,57,500/-, on 17.11.2021, as evidenced by Ext.P3 challan, for collecting parking fee at Nilakkal from 17.11.2021 to 31.10.2022. 8. The petitioner defaulted payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.41,57,500/-, which was payable on 17.12.2021. On 26.12.2021, he remitted a sum of Rs.7,17,800/-, as evidenced by Ext.P4 challan. Thereafter, a further sum of W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 6 Rs.5,00,000/- was remitted on 04.01.2022, as evidenced by Ext.P5 challan. The balance bid amount payable by the petitioner comes to Rs.24,39,700/-. 9. In **Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 1091: 2022 SCC OnLine Ker** **611]** we noticed that, as per clause (8) of the tender conditions, which forms part of the tender notifications issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, the Board has the right to cancel the bid of successful bidders who failed to remit the entire amount within the time stipulated by the Board and to conduct re-auction. In which event, the original bidder will be responsible for the loss, if any, sustained by the Board. As per clause (10) of the tender conditions, the successful bidder will be liable to pay 18% interest for belated remittance of instalments. In case of default in remitting the said amount, i.e., defaulted instalments together with 18% interest, the Board will have the right to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the bidder for recovering the loss caused to it. As per clause (12) of the tender conditions, in case the bidder has defaulted payment of bid amount in any manner, W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 7 which has resulted in the Board sustaining loss, the Board shall have the right to proceed against the movable and immovable properties of the bidder for recovering the said loss. Proceedings under clause (23) of the tender conditions shall also be initiated against such defaulters, for black-listing. 10. As per the tender conditions, which form part of the tender notifications issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, the successful bidder, who has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount, is liable for penal interest at the rate of 18% for the defaulted amount from the due date. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the balance bid amount of Rs.24,39,700/-, together with penal interest at the rate of 18% from 17.12.2021. For the belated payments made on 26.10.2021 and 04.01.2022, vide Exts P4 and P5 challans, the petitioner is liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 18% from 17.12.2021 till the date of such payments. In case of default, the petitioner has to face the consequences provided in the tender conditions, i.e., cancellation of the bid, followed by recovery proceedings and also proceedings for blacklisting, in case the circumstances so warrant. Despite the default in W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 8 payment of the balance bid amount together with penal interest at the rate of 18% from 17.12.2021, the petitioner is permitted to continue as Kuthaka holder for collecting parking fee at Nilakkal, since his term will expire only on 31.10.2022. 11. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per Section 15A of the Act, which deals with duties of the Board, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 15A, which includes duty to see that regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. As per Section 31 of the Act, which deals with management of Devaswoms, subject to the provisions of Part-I of the Act and the rules made thereunder, W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 9 the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of festivals in every temple according to its usage. 12. The provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act make it explicitly clear that the role assigned to the Travancore Devaswom Board in the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms is that of a trustee in the management of the properties vested in the Deity, which is bound to administer, supervise and control incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms in accordance with the provisions under the said Act. The Board and its officials are duty bound to function within the framework of the statute, by scrupulously following the stipulations contained therein and acting strictly in accordance with the settled legal principles relating to the administration of Hindu religious trust. The Board, being a trustee in the management of Devaswom properties, is legally bound to perform its duties with utmost W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 10 ## care and caution. 13. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara** **[(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs. 21,500/-, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 11 of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 12 permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 14. In **Rajani P. Kuttan v. State of Kerala [2021 (6) KHC 513]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that among the 1250 Temples managed by the Travancore Devaswom - Board, only 60 major Temples are self sufficient and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. The total number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Travancore Devaswom Board is 5692 and the total number of pensioners is 5749. The major source of revenue of the Travancore Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the Temples. A mong the W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 13 1250 temples managed by the Devaswom Board, only 60 - major temples are self sufficient, and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. Paragraph 59 of the said decision reads thus; “59. The Financial position of the Devaswom Board:— The competent officer of the Devaswom Board filed an affidavit dated 14.06.2021 stating its financial position. It is submitted that there are 1250 temples under the Administrative Control of the Devaswom Board. The total number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Devaswom Board is 5692, and the total number of pensioners is 5749. It is further submitted that the major sources of revenue of the Devaswom Board are the income received by way of offerings from devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu, and the revenue generated through the auction of the temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples. Besides this, the Devaswom Board gets an approximate sum of 14 crores per annum by way of the rent of the buildings owned by it. The annual contribution from the State Government under Article 290A of the Constitution of India is Rs. 80 lakhs. It is further submitted that among the 1250 temples managed by the - Devaswom Board, only 60 major temples are self sufficient, and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. Now, due to the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, the temples remain closed, and the major source of income has come down. W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 14 The Devaswom Board is finding it difficult even to pay the salary of the existing employees. The pleadings regarding the financial position of the Devaswom Board in the affidavit dated 14.06.2021 have not been controverted by the petitioners.” (underline supplied) 15. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘ ’ fences eating the crops should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 15 16. In **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [(2013 (3) KLT 132]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parents patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 17. In **Suneesh K.S. [ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 1091: 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 611]** we held that, the properties of deities W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 16 and temples are required to be protected and safeguarded from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. Persons entrusted with the duty to manage such properties should be vigilant to prevent such usurpation or encroachment. When such usurpation or encroachment is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, such ‘ ’ acts of fences eating the crops should be dealt with sternly. The officers concerned and also the devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from usurpation or encroachment, wrongful claims or misappropriation. Therefore, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer shall take stern action against those who have defaulted payment of instalments in respect of the Kuthaka items, in violation of the tender conditions, if found necessary, after seeking police assistance. If any such request is received, it is the duty of the concerned Station House Officer to render necessary assistance to the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner or the Administrative W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 17 Officer, in order to protect and safeguard the properties of deities and temples from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. Proceedings under clause (23) of the tender conditions shall also be initiated against such defaulters, for black-listing. In the said decision rendered on 01.02.2022, the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to issue a circular, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment, requiring the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer to take stern action against those who have defaulted payment of instalments in respect of the Kuthaka items, in violation of the tender conditions. 18. As already noticed hereinbefore, despite the default in payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.24,39,700/together with penal interest at the rate of 18% from 17.12.2021, and penal interest at the said rate for the belated payments made on 26.10.2021 and 04.01.2022, vide Exts P4 and P5 challans, from 17.12.2021 till the date of such payments, the petitioner is permitted to continue as Kuthaka holder for collecting parking fee at Nilakkal, since his term will W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 18 expire only on 31.10.2022. Among the 1250 temples managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only 60 major temples are self-sufficient, and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. In view of the law laid down in **Suneesh K.S. [ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 1091 : 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 611]** the 2[nd] respondent Executive Officer ought to have reported the matter to the Devaswom Commissioner for taking stern action against the petitioner, who has defaulted payment of balance bid amount in respect of the Kuthaka item, in violation of the tender conditions. The competent authority in the 1[st] respondent Board ought to have initiated proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of the bid, followed by recovery proceedings and also proceedings for blacklisting, in case the circumstances so warrant. 19. The grievance of the petitioner, which is highlighted in Ext.P7 representation dated 24.03.2022 submitted before the 2[nd] respondent Executive Officer of Sabarimala Devaswom, is that the police is neither preventing illegal parking of vehicles at Pamba Hilltop nor permitting the petitioner to collect parking fee for the vehicles illegally parked at Pamba W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 19 Hilltop, which is causing heavy loss to the petitioner. The said representation was followed by Ext.P8 representation dated 13.04.2022 before the 3[rd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Pamba Police Station, wherein it is stated that on 12.04.2022 and 13.04.2022 vehicles were permitted to proceed to Pamba without obtaining vehicle pass after entering the parking ground at Nilakkal and such vehicles were permitted to park at Pamba Hilltop, Chakkupalam road and Attathode, which caused heavy loss to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 18.04.2022 before the 2[nd] respondent Executive Officer, in continuation of Ext.P7 representation dated 24.03.2022. 20. In the affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer, it is stated that, he is yet to receive Ext.P8 representation made by the petitioner. According to the 3[rd] respondent, to ensure that no vehicles are parked on the road side from Nilakkal to Pamba, two police vehicles were continuously patrolling over the route. During Meenamasa Pooja and Medamasa Pooja, two more patrolling vehicles and two motor bikes were introduced for patrolling to ensure that W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 20 no vehicles are parked on either side of the road from Nilakkal to Pamba. During Meenamasa Pooja, there was huge flow of devotees from different States. To control huge crowd, light motor vehicles were permitted to go beyond Nilakkal for the purpose of dropping devotees at Pamba and also for picking up devotees on their return. This was subject to the condition that, after dropping the devotees, the driver should take back the vehicle and park at Nilakkal. The vehicles parked/halted are those for picking up devotees on their return after darshan and those vehicles parked/halted there only for a while. Some of the devotees halted at Attathodu for taking food and consuming water and after that they left that place. In the affidavit, the 3[rd] respondent denied the allegation contained in the writ petition that the police authorities allowed parking of vehicles at Pamba Hilltop or on both sides of the road from Nilakkal to Pamba. 21. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that, when the petitioner has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount, which was payable on 17.12.2021, the 2[nd] respondent Executive Officer W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 21 issued three notices requiring the petitioner to remit the balance bid amount together with penal interest. Even after the receipt of such notices, the petitioner did not make any payment. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent has reported the matter to the Devaswom Commissioner to take appropriate action against the petitioner. 22. The fact that the petitioner has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount payable on 17.12.2021 is not disclosed in Ext.P7 representation dated 24.03.2022 made before the 2[nd] respondent Executive Officer. In Ext.P9 representation dated 18.04.2022 the petitioner has admitted that there were repeated demands from the 2nd respondent Executive Officer for payment of the balance bid amount of - nd Rs.24,39,700/ and the 2 respondent has also made such demand in writing. The petitioner has not chosen to produce a copy of that written demand before this Court, along with the writ petition. Though it is averred in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that, the petitioner has to pay the balance amount of - Rs.24,39,700/ towards the bid amount, the fact that the balance bid amount was payable on 17.12.2021 is not W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 22 ## disclosed in the writ petition. The said fact is also not disclosed in the synopsis of the writ petition. 23. It is well settled that, a litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and clean objects. The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no person would be allowed to abuse the judicial process, particularly, in public law remedy. In writ proceedings, the Court places implicit faith on the parties and their pleadings, as it does not indulge in any fact finding or roving enquiry of what has been asserted. Since Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouses equity jurisprudence, a litigant who has approached the High Court with unclean hands, without disclosing full facts, is not entitled for any relief. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Despite the default in payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.24,39,700/- together with penal interest at the rate of 18% from 17.12.2021, and penal interest at the said rate for the belated payments made on 26.10.2021 and 04.01.2022, vide W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 23 Exts P4 and P5 challans, from 17.12.2021 till the date of such payments, the petitioner was permitted to continue as Kuthaka holder for collecting parking fee at Nilakkal. Since the petitioner has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount together with penal interest, he has to face the consequences provided in the tender conditions, i.e., cancellation of the bid, followed by recovery proceedings and also proceedings for blacklisting. It is for the competent authority in the 1[st] respondent Board to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner immediately on receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the balance bid amount together with penal interest at the rate of 18%, as per the tender conditions, for which he requires a reasonable time. 26. Based on the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is granted two weeks' time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment to pay the balance bid amount of Rs.24,39,700/together with penal interest at the rate of 18% from W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 24 17.12.2021, and penal interest at the said rate for the belated payments made on 26.10.2021 and 04.01.2022, vide Exts. P4 and P5 challans, from 17.12.2021 till the date of such payments. In case of default, the competent authority in the 1[st] respondent Board shall take steps as provided in the tender conditions, for cancellation of the bid, followed by recovery proceedings against the petitioner and also proceedings for blacklisting. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed; subject to the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **JUDGE** yd W.P.(C)No.14518 of 2022 25 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** - **Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES (PAGE NO.1 AND 23) OF THE E-TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.ROC.53/21/SAB DATED 04/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID E-TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.ROC NO.53/2021/SAB. DATED 04-10-2021** - **Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE DUPLICATE TDB CHALLAN DATED 17-11-2021 FOR RS.41,57500/ISSUED BY THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK TO THE PETITIONER** - **Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE DUPLICATE TDB CHALLAN DATED 26-12-2021 FOR RS.7,17,800/ISSUED BY THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK TO THE PETITIONER** - **Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE DUPLICATE TDB CHALLAN DATED 4-1-2022 FOR RS.5,00,000/- ISSUED BY THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK TO THE PETITIONER** - **Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE DUPLICATE TDB CHALLAN DATED 5-1-2022 FOR RS.5,00,000/- ISSUED BY THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK TO THE PETITIONER** - **Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24-3-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13-4-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18-4-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**