Gokul Raj vs The Travancore Devaswom Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 4285 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

                                   &

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.22231 OF 2020(D)


PETITIONER:

               GOKUL RAJ
               AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. RAJEEV,
               NANDANAM, THOTTAKOM P.O.,
               VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 145.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
               SHRI.S.RAJMOHAN
               SMT.R.ANJALI
               SRI.ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
               TDB HEAD OFFICE, NANTHANCODE,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.

      2        THE COMMISSIONER
               TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
               NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               PIN-695 003.

      3        THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
               (FINANCE AND INSPECTION)
               OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
               TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.

      4        THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
               VAIKOM GROUP,
               ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
               TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
               VAIKOM-686 141.
 WP(C).No.22231 OF 2020(D)

                                  2



      5      *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED

             MR.RAJESH BHASKARAN,
             MUPPATHIL CHIRA,
             THEKKEKARA P.O.,
             MANKOMBU -688503.

             ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.11.2020
             IN IA NO.1/2020.

             R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.22231 OF 2020(D)

                                               3




              ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R.RAVI, JJ.
                  =============================
                        W. P. (C). No.22231 of 2020
                  =============================
                        Dated this the 5th day of February, 2021

                                     JUDGMENT

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

"1. Call for the records connected with the case;

2. Declare that Exhibit P4 is unwarranted, arbitrary and illegal;

3. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4 communication;

4. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue with the contract for the tender period;

5. Issue any such other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case; and

6. To award cost to the petitioner."

2. Heard Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the

writ petitioner, Sri.G.Biju, learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore

Devaswom Board appearing for the respondents. Though notice has been

duly served on the additional contesting respondent No.5, there is no

appearance for that party.

3. The brief of the case set up by the writ petitioner is as follows:

"The Devaswom Commissioner invited applications for the grant of Kuthaka right for sale of pooja articles and other items in the temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board, including Vaikom Mahadeva Tample, for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. Assistant Devaswom Commissioner had published a notice inviting tender for auctioning kuthaka rights for different WP(C).No.22231 OF 2020(D)

stalls in Vaikom Mahadeva Tample. The auction for different stalls and items in Vaikom Mahadeva Temple was conducted in the presence of bidders. The petitioner quoted highest amount for the kuthaka rights to operate the stall selling pooja articles, Rs.1,23,456/- and in negotiation it was enhanced to 1,25,000/-. The petitioner deposited the entire auction amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.

The Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board issued an order cancelling concluded negotiation with the petitioner and proposing to conduct a fresh negotiation in the same matter by including a third party also. The 4th respondent informed the petitioner that the Devaswom Board has received a complaint from one Mr.Rajesh Bhaskaran and he offered a higher amount to conduct the pooja stall. It was further informed that the office of the 1 st respondent had rejected the negotiation with the petitioner and decided to conduct a fresh negotiation by including the person who filed the complaint. The Devaswom Commissioner invited applications for the grant of kuthaka right for sale of pooja articles and other items in the temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board, including Vaikom Mahadeva Temple, for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. However it was not materialised. On 08.09.2020 the Assistant Commissioner, Vaikom issued a notice inviting tenders auctioning the kuthaka rights to conduct different stalls and items in Vaikom Mahadeva Temple. On 16.09.2020 the auction was conducted in the presence of the bidders. Since the upset price fixed by the respondents was very high nobody was ready to participate in the tender and hence the 4 th respondent informed the gathering to quote the maximum rate they can offer for the item they want to participate. The petitioner quoted Rs.1,23,456/- for the stall selling pooja articles which was highest amount quoted for that item. Hence he was called for negotiation and the rate was enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/- in the negotiation. On 04.10.2020 the petitioner deposited the entire tender amount with the respondents, took over the stall and started operation on the same day itself. After a couple weeks, the 4 th respondent informed the petitioner that the Devaswom Board has received a complaint from one Mr.Rajesh Bhaskaran and he offerd a higher amount to conduct the pooja stall. It was further informed that the office of the 1 st respondent had rejected the negotiation with the petitioner and decided to conduct a fresh negotiation by including the person who filed the complaint. A communication issued by the 3 rd respondent in this regard on 07.10.2020 (Exhibit P4) also shown to him. In Exhibit P4 it is stated that the negotiation with the petitioner is rejected. But the contract which is already concluded with the petitioner and the TDB is not cancelled. The respondents have already accepted the entire amount of the kuthaka rights by Exhibit P3 and the petitioner was put in possession of the stall and permitted to start operation. The respondents are taking hasty steps to conduct negotiation with other person who had admittedly not participated in the tender process, in fact cancelling a concluded contract. The contract was concluded on acceptance of the tender amount and such contract cannot be cancelled unilaterally. In such circumstances the petitioner will be put to irreparable injury, loss and hardship."

It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the

petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the

aforementioned prayers.

WP(C).No.22231 OF 2020(D)

4. This Court while admitting this case had passed an interim

order on 19.10.2020 that the negotiation proposed as per Ext.P4 shall

stand deferred for a period of 7 days. The said interim order has been

extended from time to time. Now it is apprised by both sides that the

period of the sale arrangement referred to in Ext.P3 will be ending on

31.03.2021. Admittedl,y the petitioner had submitted the highest bid and

the entire due amounts was also paid by him. The 5 th respondent has never

participated in the bid and it appears that much later he has made a claim

that he is prepared to offer a higher amount and on this basis, both persons

were called for a negotiation and the offer of the petitioner in pursuance of

the highest bid given by the petitioner was not formally finalised.

5. Now even the total duration of the permission to be granted to

the petitioner for selling pooja articles is end by 31.03.2021. Since the

permission to be granted to the petitioner for selling of pooja articles is

only up to 31.03.2021, as the petitioner has already been continued upto

now and the balance period is only hardly for about 5-6 weeks, as the 5 th

respondent has not made any serious objections and as there is no valid

explanation from the respondent Board to justify their stand, this Court is

of the considered view that the petitioner shall be permitted by the

respondents to sell the articles in question for the remaining period upto WP(C).No.22231 OF 2020(D)

31.03.2021. It is accordingly ordered and declared.

With these observations and directions the above Writ Petition (Civil)

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

Pn WP(C).No.22231 OF 2020(D)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ROC
                     NO.1495/20/NS-2(VKM) DATED 19.2.2020.

EXHIBIT P2           A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED
                     8.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3           A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.173430 DATED
                     4.10.2020 EVIDENCING THE DEPOSIT OF THE
                     TENDER AMOUNT.

EXHIBIT P4           A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ROC
                     NO.1495/20/NS.2 DATED 7.10.2020.