Kerala High Court
Ramadas G vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 13 October, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3245 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RAMADAS G., AGED 61 YEARS
S/O K.M.GOPALA PILLA, SARASWATHY BHAVANAM,
PALLARIMANGALANG P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690107
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.MANU SRINATH
SHRI.LIJO JOHN THAMPY
SMT.NIVEDITA MUCHILOTE
SHRI.RIYAS M.B.
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS,
NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695003
2 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS,
NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
3 CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS,
NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM
BOARD, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689121
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 2
5 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
6 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
7 ADDL.R7: STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
8 ADDL.R8: SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
AUDIT, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
[ADDL.R7 & R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.02.2025 IN
I.A.1/2025 in WP(C)No.3245/2025
BY ADV.
SHRI.G.BIJU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.09.2025,
THE COURT ON 13.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 3
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging Exts.P13 and P14 orders issued by the officers of the Travancore
Devaswom Board, whereby the work contract issued to the petitioner was
cancelled.
2. The petitioner is a registered B class PWD Contractor. It is stated
that he has been doing various civil and electrical works for the 1st respondent
Travancore Devaswom Board.
3. According to the writ petitioner, the Travancore Devaswom Board
invited bids from qualified electrical contractors for carrying out certain urgent
repairs and replacement of the existing old and damaged electrical installations
in the Sasthamkotta Sree Dharma Shastha Devaswom Temple, on 23.03.2024.
From among the bidders, the petitioner was selected, and the work was allotted
to him as per Ext. P1 notice dated 16.07.2024. The contract was awarded at a
Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) of ₹1,48,346/-, and the petitioner was
directed to attend the office of the 4th respondent within two weeks for the
execution of the draft schedule, depositing the requisite amount, and for
obtaining necessary instructions.
4. In Ext.P1, there was a stipulation that the petitioner must complete
the entire work within 30 days of the actual date of handing over of the site.
The petitioner asserts that he approached the office of the 5th respondent,
Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and made the requisite deposit on
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 4
12.08.2024, as evident from Ext.P2, copy of the Term Deposit Receipt of the
Dhanlaxmi Bank. Subsequently, the petitioner and the 4th respondent entered
into Ext.P3 agreement dated 13.08.2024 as per Ext.P1 selection notice.
5. It is averred in the writ petition that the site was not handed over to
the petitioner, and therefore, he was unable to commence the work. On
23.08.2024, the petitioner received Ext.P5 communication from the 5th
respondent, requesting him to approach the 5th respondent to complete the
remaining procedures for commencing operations as per Ext. P1 selection
notice. The writ petitioner sent Ext. P6 reply to the 5th respondent, pointing out
that despite several visits to the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer
(Electrical), the site was not handed over to him.
6. Even though the petitioner approached the office of the 5th
respondent on several occasions, he was not permitted to complete any of the
pending procedures. The petitioner further states that he received Ext. P8
communication dated 22.11.2024 from the 5th respondent, serving as an
ultimatum requiring him to commence the work within five days, failing which,
consequential actions would follow. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the 5th
respondent and requested completion of all formalities and handover of the site.
Finally, on 06.01.2025, the office of the 5th respondent issued Ext. P12, the site
handover memo.
7. The petitioner would further contend that, as per Ext.P13
communication, Ext,P12 site handover memo was cancelled, stating that the
original site handover memo was communicated to the petitioner vide Ext.P8
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 5
communication. On 02.12.2024, the 4th respondent, Executive Engineer, issued
Ext.P14 work cancellation order.
8. The 1st respondent, Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed a
detailed affidavit contending that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The
subject matter of the Writ Petition concerns a dispute regarding the contractual
obligations between the parties and involves disputed questions of fact.
Therefore, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie to
enforce a civil liability, arising purely out of the contract. Reliance was also
placed in SITCO Associates v. State of Kerala and others1 and High Range
Marketing Society Ltd. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others2.
9. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the 6th respondent invited
competitive quotations from approved contractors on 15.11.2023 for urgent
repairs and the replacement of existing old and damaged electrical installations
of the temple. However, only one contractor, namely V.P. Gopakumar,
submitted a quotation in response to the invitation. The said tender was rejected.
A second tender was invited for the aforesaid work on 28.11.2023, in which
three contractors participated. The petitioner submitted the lowest bid, i.e., 9.9%
below the estimated cost, and subsequently, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P1
selection notice.
10. It is further submitted that the 5th respondent issued Ext.P5 letter
to the petitioner. In response, the petitioner sent Ext.P6 series letters stating his
2023 KHC 496
2023 KER 49419
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 6
unwillingness to commence the work. In Exts.P6, P6(a), and P6(b) letters, the
petitioner alleged that he was not given a copy of the agreement and the draft
schedule for the work. However, those documents were handed over to the
petitioner on 14.08.2024.
11. On 23.09.2024, the 6th respondent sent Ext.P7 letter, directing the
petitioner to commence the work immediately and complete the necessary
procedures without delay. However, the petitioner once again refused to
commence the work. The respondents further contended that the 6th respondent
issued Ext.P8 notice on 22.11.2024, calling upon the petitioner for the formal
handing over of the work site. The notice highlighted the difficulties faced by
devotees due to the non-completion of the work by the petitioner. Along with
this notice, the 6th respondent also sent the site handing-over form (P19), duly
signed by him. Although the petitioner received both the notice and the
appended form, he has not commenced the work and instead, sent Ext.P9 notice
on 27.11.2024.
12. Even though Ext.P11 notice was issued by the 4th respondent
directing the petitioner to commence the work urgently within three days, he did
not commence the work. The petitioner approached the Overseer holding the
additional charge of the 6th respondent, and misled him to issue Ext.P12 without
disclosing the prior issuance of the site handing-over letter dated 22.11.2024
along with Ext.P8. The Overseer who signed Ext. P12 was unaware of the
previous procedures related to the concerned file.
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 7
13. It is further submitted that, along with Ext.P13 letter, the petitioner
was also informed that the site handover order issued on 06.01.2025 was only in
error, as the site had already been handed over on 22.11.2024.
14. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner, after taking up
some electrical work in Eruva Devaswom, did not complete the work and
caused trouble with the locals, the Advisory Committee, and the Sub-Group
Officer. There were also instances where the petitioner had conflicts with
officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board.
15. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Special Government Pleader, Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing
Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and perused the materials placed on
record.
16. The main contention of the petitioner is that the cancellation of the
work order by the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officers is illegal,
arbitrary, null and void. He seeks a declaration from this Court to the effect that
Exts.P13 and P14 orders of the respondents are illegal. He also seeks a
declaration that the work site was handed over as per Ext.P1 work order only on
06.01.2025. Further, he seeks a writ of mandamus, commanding the
respondents to permit the petitioner to commence the work awarded under
Ext.P1 and to complete it within 30 days from the date of reinstatement of the
work.
17. Per contra, the respondents, the Travancore Devaswom Board and
its officers, would contend that the petitioner has sought relief for the
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 8
enforcement of contractual obligations. According to the respondents, the
appropriate remedy in such cases is for the petitioner to institute a suit before
the civil court. It is further contended that the questions as to whether the site
was handed over to the petitioner, and if so, when such handover took place, are
disputed questions of fact. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot and should not adjudicate such
disputed questions of fact.
18. In State of Kerala v. M. K. Jose3, the Honourable Supreme Court
observed that a writ court should ordinarily not entertain a Writ Petition if there
is a breach of contract involving disputed question of fact. Paragraphs 13, 16
and 27 of the judgment read as follows:
"13. A writ Court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition, if
there is a breach of contract involving disputed questions of fact. The
present case clearly indicates that the factual disputes are involved.
In State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.. 2002 (1) SCC
216, a two judge Bench reiterating the exercise of power under
Art.226 of the Constitution in respect of enforcement of contractual
obligations has stated:
"It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Art.226 is not the
proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it
was open to the respondent to approach the Court of competent
jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled
law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open
to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not
invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence
2015 KHC 4534
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 9
of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to
issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to
exercise the discretion under Art.226.
xxxxxx
16. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of
India Ltd., 2004 (3) SCC 553, a two Judge Bench after referring to
various judgments as well as the pronouncement In Gunwant Kaur
(supra) and Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar
Municipal Council, 1970 (1) SCC 582, has held thus:
"19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that
merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in
regard to the facts of the case, the Court entertaining such petition
under Art.226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the
parties to a suit. In the above case of Gunwant Kaur this Court even
went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts
require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in
an appropriate case, the writ Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a
writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no
absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises
out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed
questions of fact.
xxxxxxxx
27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles
emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:
(a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an
instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is
maintainable.
(b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for
consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ
petition in all cases as a matter of rule.
(c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim
is also maintainable.
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 10
While laying down the principle, the Court sounded a word of
caution as under:
"However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability
of a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the
Court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue
prerogative writs under Art.226 of the Constitution is plenary in
nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution.
The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a
discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition, The Court
has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this
power. (See Whirlpool Corpn, v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8)
SCC 1. And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a
prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the
exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State
or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate
the constitutional mandate of Art, 14 or for other valid and legitimate
reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said
jurisdiction."
19. The learned counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board further
submitted that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the Travancore
Devaswom Board for the enforcement of contractual obligations between
private contracting parties. The learned Standing Counsel contended that, in
order to obtain a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must establish a legal right to
compel the public authority to perform a specific act, and that there exists a
corresponding duty on the part of the public authority to perform such act. It is
submitted that, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to either plead or
establish the existence of such a legal right and the corresponding duty on the
part of the respondents.
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 11
20. Admittedly, Ext.P1 work order has been awarded to the petitioner.
It is also admitted that later Ext.P1 work order was cancelled, as evident from
Exts.P13 and P14 orders of the respondents. The parties are not in dispute as to
the fact that the work has not been commenced.
21. The contention of the petitioner is that the site was handed over to
him only on 06.01.2025 as per Ext.P12 memo. However, the Devaswom Board
would contend that the site was handed over as early as on 22.11.2024 as
evidenced from Ext.P12 memo. The crucial question before us is when the work
site was handed over to the petitioner.
22. In SITCO (supra), the Division Bench of this Court observed that
the writ court should not interfere in disputed questions of fact while exercising
judicial review powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same
principle was reiterated in the High Range Marketing Society Ltd. (supra).
23. In ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others4 the Apex Court held that a
Writ Petition is not maintainable to enforce contractual obligations. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
"8.As could be seen from the arguments addressed in this appeal and
as also from the divergent views of the two courts below one of the
questions that falls for our consideration is whether a writ petition
under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to enforce a
contractual obligation of the State or its instrumentality, by an
2004 KHC 506
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 12
aggrieved party.
9 In our opinion this question is no more res integra and is settled by
a large number of judicial pronouncements of this Court. In K.N.
Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore and Ors. [1955 (1) SCR 305] this
Court held:
"The next question is whether the appellant can complain of this by
way of a writ. In/our opinion, he could have done so in an ordinary
case. The appellant is interested in these contracts and has a right
under the laws of the State to receive the same treatment and be given
the same chance as anybody else........
We would therefore in the ordinary course have given the appellant
the writ he seeks. But owing to the time which this matter has taken
to reach us (a consequence for which the appellant is in no way to
blame, for he has done all he could to have an early hearing), there is
barely a fortnight of the contract left to go............ A writ would
therefore be ineffective and as it is not our practice to issue
meaningless writs we must dismiss this appeal and leave the appellant
content with an enunciation of the law."
10 It is clear from the above observations of this Court in the said
case though a writ was not issued on the facts of that case, this Court
has held that on a given set of facts if a State acts in an arbitrary
manner even in a matter of contract, an aggrieved party can approach
the court by way of writ under Art.226 of the Constitution and the
court depending on facts of the said case is empowered to grant the
relief. This judgment in K.N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore and
Ors. was followed subsequently by this Court in the case of The
D.F.O, South Kheri and Ors. v. Ram Sanehi Singh [1971 (3) SCC
864) wherein this Court held:
"By that order he has deprived the respondent of a valuable right. We
are unable to hold that merely because the source of the right which
the respondent claims was initially in a contract for obtaining relief
against any arbitrary and unlawful action on the part of a public
authority he must resort to a suit and not to a petition by way of a
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 13
writ. In view of the judgment of this Court in K.N. Guruswamy's case
(supra), there can be no doubt that the petition was maintainable, even
if the right to relief arose out of an alleged breach of contract, where
the action challenged was of a public authority invested with statutory
power."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. In Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer5 a
larger Bench of the Apex Court has examined the scope of judicial review of the
actions of the State in the matters relating to contract under writ jurisdiction.
The Apex Court held that Courts may entertain a contractual dispute under its
writ jurisdiction where (1) there is any violation of natural justice or (II) where
doing so would serve the public Interest or (III) where though the facts are
convoluted or disputed, but the Courts have already undertaken an in-depth
scrutiny of the same provided that the it was pursuant to a sound exercise of its
writ jurisdiction.
25. When a dispute arises concerning the enforcement of contractual
obligations, the appropriate remedy available to the parties is to approach the
civil court.
26. The petitioner, instead of approaching the civil court and without
availing the statutory remedies, approached this Court seeking the invocation of
extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner has not established any violation under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, much less a breach of the principles of natural justice.
2024 KHC OnLine 6342
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 14
27. Merely because the Travancore Devaswom Board (being an
agency or instrumentality of the Government) is a party to the dispute, a writ
petition is not maintainable in every case. Normally, the obligations arising out
of executed contracts are to be enforced through civil courts.
28. The petitioner has now approached this Court for the enforcement
of contractual obligations arising out of a contract with Travancore Devaswom
Board, which involves disputed questions of fact.
In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the writ
petition is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
msp/Sbna
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 15
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3245/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE NUMBER
EDC-287/EE/MVK-48/23-24 DATED 16.07.2024 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TERM DEPOSIT RECEIPT ISSUED BY
DHANALAXMI BANK ON 12.08.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.
PW/141/DWD/CD/ELE/24-25 DATED 13.08.2024 EXECUTED
BETWEEN THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SCHEDULE OF THE WORK
NOTIFIED UNDER EXT.P1
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. AE(E)
/MVKA/ELE/2023/19 DATED 23.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.09.2024 PREFERRED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
THE POSTAL RECEIPT
Exhibit P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.09.2024 PREFERRED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
THE POSTAL RECEIPT
Exhibit P6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.09.2024 PREFERRED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
THE POSTAL RECEIPT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.AE(E)/MVKA/ELE/2023/19 DATED 23.09.2024 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.AE(E)/MVKA/ELE/2023/19 DATED 22.11.2024 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. GRD-222 A2/2024 DATED
27.11.2024 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2024 PASSED
BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 36702
OF 2023
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 320GL/24-25
DATED 31.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE HANDOVER MEMO EXECUTED BY
THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON
06.01.2025
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
AE(E)/MVKA/ELE/2023/19 DATED 07.01.2025 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 344GL/24-25 DATED
2025:KER:75135
W.P(C) No.3245/2025 16
07.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE DYSP KAYAMKULAM DATED 20.01.2020
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.07.2020
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.07.2021 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.03.2024 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit-R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AE(E)/MVKA/ELE/2023/19
DATED 07/01/2025 SENT BY THE OVERSEER IN CHARGE OF
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD TO EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
DIVISION, CHENGANNUR
Exhibit-R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.546 DATED 07/01/2025
SENT BY SUB GROUP OFFICER, SASTHAMCOTTA DEVASWOM,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE ASST. ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, MAVELIKKARA
Exhibit-R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/01/2025 FROM THE
TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF SASTHAMCOTTA DEVASWOM
TO THE ASST. ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD
Exhibit-R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.11.2024 ISSUED TO
RAJESH MOHAN FOR THE COMPLAINT (APPLICATION
NO.15281009-2024-5-01940) LODGED WITH CHENGANNUR
POLICE STATION, REGARDING MISCONDUCT TOWARDS THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER), DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
AND OFFICE STAFF
Exhibit-R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.PW-
141/DWD/CD/ELE/24-25 FOR WORKS DATED 13.08.2024
EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH 4TH RESPONDENT IN
RESPECT OF THE WORK, URGENT REPAIRS AND
REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING OLD AND DAMAGED ELECTRICAL
INSTALLATIONS AT THE TEMPLE STRUCTURE,
NADAPPANTHAL, STAGE, AUDITORIUM, GOPURAM, KANIKKA
VANCHI, AND YARD LIGHTS IN SASTHAMKOTTA DEVASWOM
