Arun S. Baby vs The Travancore Devaswom Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 498 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

                                      &

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.26145 OF 2020(P)


PETITIONER/S:

                ARUN   S. BABY,
                AGED   36 YEARS
                S/O.   BABY, ANNIE BHAVAN, THUVAYOOR NORTH, MANAKKALA
                P.O,   ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 551

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
                SRI.M.KIRANLAL
                SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
                SRI.T.S.SARATH
                SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
                NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
                695 003,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2         THE SECRETARY,
                TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 003

      3         THE COMMISSIONER,
                TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 003

      4         THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                SABARIMALA DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PAMPA
                THRIVENI P.O, PATANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 662

                SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-
11-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).26158/2020(T), THE COURT ON 07-01-2021
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

                                      &

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

  THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.26158 OF 2020(T)


PETITIONER/S:

                SOORYA SINGH,
                AGED 36 YEARS
                S/O. RAM SINGH, PALLIYILPUTHEN VEEDU, KUMBAZHA P.O,
                KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689645.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
                SRI.M.KIRANLAL
                SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
                SRI.T.S.SARATH
                SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
                NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
                - 695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2         THE SECRETARY
                TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695003.

      3         THE COMMISSIONER
                TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695003.

      4         THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                SABARIMALA DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PAMPA
                THRIVENI P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689662.

                SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-
11-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).26145/2020(P), THE COURT ON 07-01-2021
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  W.P.(C).Nos.26145 & 26158 of 2020       3




                           JUDGMENT

Haripal, J.

As common questions have raised and since the reliefs sought

for are the same, both these writ petitions were heard together and

are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Petitioner in W.P(C) No.26145/2020 is a regular

participant of tender proceedings to conduct various business

activities in Sabarimala. He had obtained monopoly right for

vending coconut water at Nilakkal. Petitioner in W.P(C)

No.26158/2020 is a part-time businessman and interested in taking

opportunities of business. They have approached this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following

reliefs:-

1. To call for records leading to Exhibit P3 and its further action and quash the smem by issuing a writ of certiorari or any appropriatae writ or orders:

2. To issue a writ of mandamus, or any appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct the auction proceedings in respect of rights (കുത്തക) to the

conduct of various business activities at Sabarimala for the W.P.(C).Nos.26145 & 26158 of 2020 4

period 2020-21 only after proper paper publication;

3. To issue a writ of mandams, or any appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider th Exhibit P4 representation within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

3. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent had invited tenders, as

evident from Ext.P1, for auctioning out various shops and other

services during the period from 11.11.2020 to 31.10.2021 in

Sabarimala. The first notification was made on 07.10.2020. Since

there was no taker, e-tender was made under Ext.P2 notification on

27.10.2020. That also did not evoke any response, which made the

Travancore Devaswom Board, 'TDB' for short, to issue a further

notification on 10.11.2020. The case of the petitioners is that this

notification was published in the newspapers only on 11.11.2020

stipulating last date and time for submitting quotation on 12.11.2020

at 12 Noon. The Ext.P3 auction was conducted on 12.11.2020

reducing the minimum tender amount as well as the EMD. Since the

tender was published only on 11.11.2020 petitioners could not

arrange amounts towards EMD or make preparations for

participating in the auction. As there was no time, those who are W.P.(C).Nos.26145 & 26158 of 2020 5

regular in Sabarimala and close to the authorities alone could

participate in the tender proceedings. Lack of proper notice has

affected the competitiveness of the tender proceedings. Thus the

TDB has allowed a caucus of regular purchasers to stifle the process

allowing the tender proceedings without sufficient notice. That has

led to large scale corruption and nepotism.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also

the learned standing counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

5. According to the learned counsel, there was no necessity

of conducting the auction at a very short notice; even last time, more

than 50% of the monopoly rights were auctioned out only after the

commencement of the season; aspirants of auction purchasers like

the petitioners were prejudiced due to the lack of notice; and

therefore, intervention of this Court has become necessary.

6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel has opposed

the writ petitions. According to him, repeated auctions became

necessary since there was no response for the calls made under the

earlier notifications.

7. This Court cannot consider the situation closing its eyes

towards certain ground realities. From the last week of March W.P.(C).Nos.26145 & 26158 of 2020 6

onwards there was complete lockdown in the country resulting in

total ban to the entry of devotees in temples. Even when such

restrictions were removed in part in some temples, Sabarimala being

a hill shrine, such partial lifting was done only at the commencement

of season on 16.11.2020. That means, devotees were not allowed to

worship in the temple during the monthly pooja time, i.e., during the

first five days of each Malayalam month. Even now, number of

devotees has been restricted limiting to only 1000 per day with a

ladder that 2000 persons are allowed during weekly holidays and

5000 devotees during festival days. This is in sharp contrast to the

last season when there was no restriction at all, in the number of

devotees. That means, normally auction purchasers of monopoly

rights in Sabarimala will not have to look back after a season. But

this time, the first auction notification on 07.10.2020 did not evoke

any response, which made the Board to issue repeated notifications.

Ext.P3 is the third in the series. It is the admitted case that

petitioners did not respond to the earlier notifications. Now they

have come with a grievance that the auction pursuant to Ext.P3 was

conducted at short notice, which caused them prejudice.

8. After considering the entire circumstances, we are not W.P.(C).Nos.26145 & 26158 of 2020 7

convinced that the petitioners are entitled to get any relief. Firstly,

the petitioners have ignored two such earlier calls with open eyes.

They have no case that they were not aware of the Exts.P1 and P2

notifications. Obviously, they did not respond to the said

notifications. After ignoring those opportunities, they cannot be

heard to say that the auction was held on 12.11.2020 at short notice,

that they were unable to arrange EMD or make preparations for

participating in the auction, etc.

9. Secondly, this time the TDB is facing a noval situation.

A decision to admit limited number of devotees was taken only a

few weeks prior to the commencement of the season. Uncertainties

dissuaded auction purchasers. That has reflected very much in the

response to the two earlier notifications. That led the TDB to issue

successive notifications. Everything had to be managed by the TDB

in the backdrop of sceptical situations. Therefore, the TDB cannot

be found fault with, for repeating notifications even with short

notice. Moreover, everything had to be finalised before the

commencement of the season on 16.11.2020. According to the

learned standing counsel, in between, there were holidays due to

Chithira Attam, Deepavali and Sunday.

W.P.(C).Nos.26145 & 26158 of 2020 8

10. After considering the circumstances, we do not find

valid reasons to interfere with the proceedings. The very bona fides

of the petitioners have to be doubted. It appears that they have

rushed to the Court on getting smell of an anticipated increase in the

number of devotees during the coming days. Thus they have

approached the Court on experimental basis and none of the reliefs

is allowable.

Both the writ petitions are dismissed in limine. We abstain

from awarding costs.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL JUDGE

okb/26.11.2020

//True copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C).Nos.26145 & 26158 of 2020 9

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26145/2020

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF TENDER CONDITIONS SHOWING THE RELEVANT DATES VIDE 53/20/SAB DATED 07-10-2020

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN RESPECT TO THE RE-E-TENDER DATED 27-10-

2020 BY THE DEVASWOM BOARD

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER NOTIFICATION DATED 10-11-2020 OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-11-2020 ALONG WITH COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 22-11-2020 W.P.(C).Nos.26145 & 26158 of 2020 10

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26158/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF TENDER CONDITIONS SHOWING THE RELEVANT DATES VIDE 53/20/SAB/ DATED 07.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN RESPECT TO THE RE-E-TENDER DATED 27.10.2020 BY THE DEVASWOM BOARD,

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER NOTIFICATION DATED 10.11.2020 OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD,

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.11.2020 ALONG WITH COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19.11.2020.