(Rs.5 lakhs x 2 = 10 lakhs). The prayer in petitioner in O.P(C).No.295/ 2018 is that he should be allotted one more additional month from 1st April, 2018, on the basis of terms of the auction inasmuch as what was offered to him was for three months' period. The said plea is seriously opposed by the Deputy Manager and Manager of the temple administration, who are represented through their learned Advocates concerned. It is stated that the present situation arose only because of the intervention made by this Court in O.P(C).No. 3710/2017, which led to the subsequent order passed by the court below, which is impugned herein and that, going by the consistent practice and norms of the temple administration, the auction is made strictly on quarterly basis for three months each starting from the 1st of January of the year concerned and if one more month is allotted to the petitioner in O.P(C).No. 295/2018, it will upset the entire regularity in the chain of the auction process. The respondent temple administration is seriously opposing the plea. The said objection raised by the temple administration cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. At any rate, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the considered decision of the temple administration. Moreover, the petitioner in O.P(C).No.295/2018 has not suffered any financial loss in this process, inasmuch as he paid only for a period of two months and not for the offered three months. Therefore, though this Court has all sympathies with the petitioner in O.P(C).No.295/2018, this Court will not be justified in exercising its powers of supervisory jurisdiction to overrule the said
