Sunil Kumar P.G v. State of Kerala, Travancore Devaswom Board, Devaswom Commissioner, Executive Officer, Deputy Devaswom Commissioner

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **W.P.(C)NO.18537 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **SUNIL KUMAR P.G, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, MANIKANDDAVILASAM, MANNIRAM P.O, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 672. BY ADVS. V.H.JASMINE JESWIN P.VARGHESE REETHU JACOB** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003.** - **3 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KAVADIYOOR P.O, NANDANCODE, NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.** - **4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SABARIMALA, PAMPA TRIVENI P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 670.** - **5 SPECIAL OFFICER (*DELETED) SABARIMALA, PAMBA 689 670.** - **(R5 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTION IN THIS JUDGMENT)** - **6 DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, KUMBAZHA ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645.** **SRI S.RAJMOHAN-SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Anil K. Narendran, J This writ petition is one filed by an 'A' class contractor carrying out various contract works in the temples under the management of the 2[nd] respondent-Travancore Devaswom Board, who had participated in the auction for the year 1197 ME (202122), for conducting cloak room and stall at Pamba in Sabarimala, Sl.No.115 in Ext.P1 e-tender notification dated 04.09.2021 issued by the Board. In the auction conducted on 24.11.2021, the petitioner was the highest bidder, who offered a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The auction was confirmed in his name on 24.11.2021. In terms of the tender conditions in Ext.P1, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 24.11.2021 itself, towards 50% of the bid amount. As per the tender conditions, the petitioner has to remit the balance bid amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, in two equal installments of Rs.12,50,000/- each, on 24.12.2021 and 24.01.2022, respectively. Admittedly, the petitioner defaulted payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.12,50,000/- each, payable on the aforesaid dates. Thereafter, he had remitted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.03.2022. 3 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly challenging Ext.P39 notice dated 17.05.2022 issued by the 4[th] respondent-Executive Officer, Sabarimala, whereby he is directed to remit the balance bid amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, together with penal interest at the rate of 18%, within 24 hours, failing which the cloak room and stall at Pamba will have to be closed and its key has to be surrendered in the office of the 4[th] respondent. In case of default, proceedings will be initiated against the petitioner for violating the tender conditions, including proceedings for blacklisting, and the kuthaka item will be re-tendered. In Ext.P39, it is sated that, despite repeated demands, the petitioner has not chosen to remit the balance bid amount, together with penal interest. 3. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to refund of a sum of Rs.46,77,250/-, in respect of various Kuthaka items for the year 2015 to 2020, towards refund of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), building security and cleaning security deposits, which has to be adjusted towards the demand made in Ext.P32 notice issued by the 4[th] respondent for payment of balance bid amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. Therefore, no coercive action can be taken against 4 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 him for the default in remitting the balance bid amount, in terms of the tender conditions in Ext.P1 notification. 4. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to release the payment of Rs.46,77,250/- to the petitioner, within a time period stipulated by this Court; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the petitioner for the said amount of Rs.46,77,250/-, pending payment; a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P39 notice dated 17.05.2022 issued by the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to adjust the demand raised in Ext.P39 notice from the amount due to the petitioner from respondents 3 and 4 amounting to Rs.46,77,250/- and direct the said respondents to refund the balance amount due to the petitioner; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect of kuthaka item No.115 in Ext.P1 tender notification, until the return of an amount of Rs.46,77,250/- due to the petitioner; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to consider Exts.P3, P4, P5, P6, 5 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 P12, P13, P16, P17, P18, P19, P20, P21, P22, P23, P24, P25, P26, P27, P28, P33, P35, P37, P38 and P40 representations submitted by petitioner, after affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent State and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would point out that there is no officer by name 'Special Officer, Sabarimala at Pamba'. Therefore, the 5[th] respondent is deleted from the party array. Registry to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition. 7. After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioner would confine the reliefs sought for in this writ petition for a time bound disposal of the representations referred to in relief No.(vi) by the 3[rd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner and the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer and to keep in abeyance the coercive steps taken against the petitioner till the disposal of those representations. 6 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 8. During the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that the Kuthaka item in question i.e., item No.115 in Ext.P1 tender notification for conducting cloak room and stall at Pamba was auctioned during the year 1191ME for Rs.90,00,000/-, 1192ME for Rs.92,92,929/-, 1193ME for Rs.93,39,339/-, 1194ME for Rs.77,50,000/-, 1195ME for Rs.75,05,000/-, and 1196ME for Rs.1,11,111/-. Thereafter, during the year 1197ME (2021-22), the said Kuthaka item was auctioned for Rs.50,00,000/-, by the petitioner. 9. When the learned Standing Counsel would point out that, when the petitioner defaulted payment of the balance bid amount, the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer issued Ext.P32 notice dated 05.02.2022, Ext.P34 notice dated 09.03.2022, Ext.P36 notice dated 14.04.2022 and Ext.P39 notice dated 17.05.2022, whereby he was directed to pay the balance bid amount together with 18% interest and in case of default, he has to face the penal consequences as per the tender conditions in Ext.P1 notification. After the receipt of Ext.P34 notice dated 09.03.2022, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.03.2022 and 7 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 therefore, the demand made in Ext.P36 notice dated 14.04.2022 and Ext.P39 notice dated 17.05.2022 was reduced to Rs.20,00,000/-, together with penal interest at the rate of 18%. In Ext.P34 notice dated 09.03.2022, the 4[th] respondent has stated that, the petitioner produced challans evidencing remittance of EMD for the previous years, only for a sum of Rs.8,70,000/-. The petitioner cannot default payment of the balance bid amount in respect of Kuthaka item No.115 in Ext.P1 tender notification, on the ground that he is entitled to refund of certain amount towards EMD in respect of Kuthaka items for the previous years. 10. 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 8 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 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, 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. 11. As per the tender conditions, which form part of Ext.P1 tender notification issued by the 2[nd] respondent 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.20,00,000/-, together with penal interest at the rate of 18% from the respective due dates for the second and third installments. For the belated payment of Rs.5,00,000/- made on 14.03.2022, the petitioner is 9 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 liable to pay penal interest from 24.12.2021 till 14.03.2022. On account of default in payment of the balance bid amount, the petitioner has to face penal 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 payment of the balance bid amount together with penal interest at the rate of 18% from 24.12.2021, the petitioner is permitted to continue as Kuthaka holder for conducting cloak room and stall at Pamba. Though the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer issued repeated notices requiring the petitioner to remit the balance bid amount, the petitioner, instead of paying the balance amount, has chosen to submit repeated representations before the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents for adjustment of certain payments made by him towards EMD and other security deposits, while auctioning Kuthaka items for the previous years. 12. In **M.K. Jose [(2015) 9 SCC 433]** , after referring to the law laid down in **Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216]** and **Ganga Enterprises [(2003) 7 SCC 410]** , reiterated that a writ court should ordinarily not entertain a writ 10 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if there is a breach of contract involving disputed questions of fact. 13. In **M.K. Jose [(2015) 9 SCC 433]** the Apex Court noticed that, in **ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553]** a Two-Judge Bench after referring to various judgments as well as the pronouncement in **Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC 769]** and **Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC 582]** granted the relief as the facts were absolutely clear from the documentary evidence brought which pertain to interpretation of certain clauses of contract of insurance. The issue that had arisen in **ABL International** was that an instrumentality of a State was placing a different construction on the clauses of the contract of insurance and the insured was interpreting the contract differently. The Court thought it apt merely because something is disputed by the insurer, it should not enter into the realm of disputed questions of fact. In fact, there was no disputed question of fact, but it required interpretation of the terms of the contract of insurance. Similarly, if the materials 11 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 that come on record from which it is clearly evincible, the writ court may exercise the power of judicial review. 14. In **M.K. Jose [(2015) 9 SCC 433]** the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the High Court has appointed a Commission to collect the evidence, accepted the same without calling for objections from the respondent, and quashed the order of termination of contract. The Apex Court observed that, the procedure adopted by the High Court is quite unknown to exercise of powers under Article 226 in a contractual matter. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.18 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Hosdurg seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 15. In case any amount is legally due from the petitioner towards refund of EMD and other security deposits, referred to in Ext.P3 representation dated 29.11.2021 and also the subsequent representations referred to in relief No.(vi), it is for the petitioner to pursue those representations before respondents 3 and 4 and it cannot be a ground for defaulting payment of the balance bid amount in terms of the tender conditions in Ext.P1 notification, in respect of Kuthaka item No.115 for conducting cloak room and stall at Pamba, for the year 1197ME. The said dispute cannot be 12 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 resolved in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **M.K.Jose [(2015) 9 SCC 433]** . 16. As already noticed hereinbefore, the auction amount for Kuthaka item No.115 during the year 1191ME, 1192ME and 1193ME was Rs.90,00,000/- and above. The auction amount for the year 1194ME and 1195ME was above Rs.75,00,000/-. For the year 1197ME (2021-22), the petitioner is the highest bidder for Rs.50,00,000/-. During the year 1197ME, there was cartel formation by the bidders, which was brought to the notice of this Court by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. In the reports filed by the Special Commissioner, this Court has passed various orders. 17. 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 13 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 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, 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. 18. 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 14 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 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 care and caution. 19. 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 15 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 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 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 16 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 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 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) 20. 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 17 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 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. 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. 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 18 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 - 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 Covid19 pandemic, the temples remain closed, and the major source of income has come down. 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) ## 21. 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 19 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 22. 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. 20 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 23. In **Suneesh K.S. [ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 1091: 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 611]** we held that, the properties of deities 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 21 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 Devaswom Commissioner or the Administrative 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. 24. As already noticed hereinbefore, despite the default in payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.20,00,000/-together with penal interest at the rate of 18% from 24.12.2021, and penal interest at the said rate for the belated payment of Rs.5,00,000/made on 14.03.2022, from 24.12.2021 till the date of such payment, the petitioner is permitted to continue as Kuthaka holder for conducting cloak room and stall at Pamba. Among the 1250 temples managed by the 2[nd] respondent Board, only 60 major 22 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 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 4[th] respondent Executive Officer ought to have reported the default committed by the petitioner to the 3[rd] respondent 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 2[nd] respondent Board ought to have initiated proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of the bid, followed by recovery proceedings and also proceedings for blacklisting. 25. After repeated demand notices, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P36 notice dated 14.04.2022 and Ext.P39 notice dated 17.05.2022, whereby the petitioner was informed that on account of the default in payment of the balance bid amount, he will have to face recovery proceedings and other penal actions, including proceedings for blacklisting. 26. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for 23 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 the perusal of this Court a proceedings dated 17.05.2022 of the 3[rd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted from participating in the auction for Kuthaka items in temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board, including Sabarimala. In the said order it is noticed that during MandalaMakaravilakku Festival of 1197ME and also Masapooja and ThiruUlsavam, the petitioner attacked the successful bidder for toilet block at Pamba Manalppuram and his associates, which had resulted in registration of various crimes in Pamba Police Station. We do not propose to consider the legality or otherwise of the order dated 17.05.2022 of the 3[rd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the petitioner is blacklisted, since it is beyond the scope of this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is yet to be issued with a copy of the said order and the petitioner will challenge that order in appropriate proceedings. 27. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with Ext.P39 notice dated 23.05.2022 issued by the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer, Sabarimala and also the proceedings initiated pursuant to that notice, on account of the default on the 24 ## W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 part of the petitioner in remitting the balance bid amount in respect of Kuthaka item No.115 in Ext.P1 tender notification. The relief sought for in this writ petition in respect of the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P39 notice dated 23.05.2022 of the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer are declined. It would be open to the petitioner to pursue the representations, if any, pending before 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents, in respect of Kuthaka items for the previous years, in case he is having a legal right for claiming such amount as per the tender conditions applicable for the previous years. 28. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, subject to the aforesaid observations. Respondents 2 to 4 shall proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law taking note of the law laid down by this Court in **Suneesh K.S. [ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 1091]** and also the general directions contained therein. No order as to costs. ## Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** PV 25 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18537/2022** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER ROC 53/21/SAB DATED 04.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF PETITIONER FROM 01.04.2015 TO 15.03.2022 ISSUED FROM SBI, RANNI BRANCH. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 23.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 23.10.2018 WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 118, BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN DATED 19.11.2018 OF DHANALAKSHMI BANK FOR ITEM NO. 91. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN DATED 22.11.2018 WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 90 ISSUED FROM DHANALAKSHMI BANK. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO. 142 DATED 01.12.2018 WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 90. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 91 DATED 21.11.2018. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, GOODRIKKAL FOREST RANGE. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.04.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.04.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. ROC 8438/2019/SAB DATED 14.05.2019 SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT.** 26 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 - **Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. E.O.P 5741/2019/SAB DATED 27.05.2019 SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 05.09.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 30.09.2019 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 29.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 29.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 29.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 29.12.2021 WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 208-A FOR THE YEAR 2018-2019 CLEANING SECURITY AMOUNT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 29.12.2021 WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 115 FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 CLEANING SECURITY AMOUNT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 29.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 03.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 06.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** 27 W.P.(C)No.18537 of 2022 **Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 28.02.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER.** **Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN FOR ITEM NO. 114 DATED 18.11.2019 FOR THE PERIOD 20192020.** **Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN FOR ITEM NO. 102 AND 110 FOR THE YEAR 2019-20 DATED 12.11.2019.** - **Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO. 164 FOR ITEM NOS. 102 AND 110 DATED 08.12.2019.** - **Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. EOP-196/2021/ SAB DATED 05.02.2022 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P33 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 06.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P34 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. E.O.P 196/2021 DATED 09.03.2022 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P35 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.04.2022 NO. E.O.P NO. 196/2021/115/SAB ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P36 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.04.2021 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P37 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 18.04.2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P38 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 17.05.2022 NO. E.O.P 196/2021/115/SAB ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **Exhibit P39 TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.05.2022.** - **Exhibit P40 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 23.05.2022 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**