Petitioner challenging minimum tender amount fixation for temporary stalls auction at Ettumanoor Mahadeva Temple during Makaravilakku festival. Court held Board Order mandating 3-year average calculation is valid and refused petitioner's request for deviation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 25040 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K.VINEETH KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, POLACHIRA, MADAPPATTU, PUNNATHURA WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 831.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SMT.SNEHA ROSE SMT.P.S.ARUNA
RESPONDENTS:
SRI G.SANTHOSH KUMAR-STANDING COUNSEL, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ; SRI A.S.P KURUP - ADV COMMISSIONER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2021 ALONG WITH REPORT NO.69 IN D.B.A.NO.2 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Friday, the 12th day of November 2021 / 21st Karthika,
1943
REPORT NO.69 IN DBA NO. 2 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF ETTUMANOOR SREE MAHADEVA TEMPLE MASTER
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
------
ETTUMANOOR SREE MAHADEVA TEMPLE
Vs.
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE
KAWDIAR POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA – 695003
BY SRI. G.BIJU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
BY SRI.A.S.P. KURUP, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
BY SRI.P. RAMACHANDRAN, AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN
THIS REPORT NO.69 IN DBA 2/2010 HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 12.11.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C) 25040/2021, UPON PERUSING THE REPORT, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
“CR”
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J
W.P.(C) No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
The issue involved in W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 and Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 relates to Ext.P2 tender notice dated 01.11.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, Vaikom, regarding the public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, for the period from 15.11.2021 to 20.01.2022.
4
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
petition, it is stated that the petitioner and other similar vendors, nearly seven in number, are the usual bidders, who bid space in Devaswom ground for conducting shops on a seasonal basis. Every year there will be an increase of 5% to 10% in the upset price fixed for the space. For the Navaratri festival, the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner conducted the auction on 30.09.2021, without any tender notice, to favour some outsiders to come into the field. The petitioner along with six other vendors submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 30.09.2021 before the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner and at his instance, a tender notice was issued and the auction was conducted on 04.10.2021. The petitioner and other vendors quoted a reasonably high rate of ground rent and the Advocate Commissioner fixed the rate at Rs.1,500/- per sq.ft., fixing Rs.15,000/- for 10 sq.ft. Accordingly, the petitioner bid the said premises from 04.10.2021 and the period expired on 30.10.2021.
2.1. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P2 tender notice dated 01.11.2021, regarding the public auction of the right to erect
5
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, for the period from 15.11.2021 to 20.01.2022. As per Ext.P3 notice, the auction will be conducted under the supervision of the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner, on 08.11.2021. According to the petitioner, in violation of tender conditions, the 3rd respondent arbitrarily fixed a condition that the minimum tender amount (upset price) will be the average of the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the previous three years with 10% increase. This was objected to by the petitioner and other bidders. The petitioner demanded fixation of the minimum tender amount at 5% above the tender amount for the previous year, i.e., Rs.1,575/- per sq.ft. However, the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner fixed the minimum tender amount as Rs.1,650/- per sq.ft., which was objected to by the 3rd respondent, and therefore tender could not be finalised.
2.2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 08.11.2021 before the 2nd respondent Devaswom
6
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
Commissioner with a request to fix the minimum tender amount (upset price) during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, 10% above the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the previous year, instead of 10% above the average tender amount for the previous three years. In the writ petition, it is alleged that there is a rift between the Devaswom officials, especially respondents 3 and 4, and the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner, who is supervising the conduct of tender from the year 2008 onwards.
2.3. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to complete the tender proceedings regarding the public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumannoor Sree Mahadeva Temple during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, on or before 16.11.2021; a declaration that the decision of the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court in respect of all the proceedings, including fixation of tender
7
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
amount, shall be final, in pursuance to Ext.P2 tender notice; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner to comply with the tender conditions by fixing 10% hike of the previous year's tender amount as the minimum tender amount to be quoted by the tenderers in the auction during the current year.
2.4. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for admission as item No.103 in the admission list, it was ordered to be listed at 4.00 p.m., along with Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 filed by the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner dated 11.11.2021.
8
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the report of the learned Advocate commissioner dated 11.11.2021 read thus;
“8. With respect to the auction for this year's Navarathri festival, telephonic information was given to me by the Administrative Officer in the evening of 29.9.2021 that the auction is scheduled by the Deputy Commissioner on 30.9.2021 at 11 am. I have also received complaints from some prospective bidders that auction notice was not published and auction is going to be conducted on the next day at 11 am after some oral publicity. I have also received a written complaint in this regard. Immediately, on 29.9.2021, I informed the Administrative Officer that the auction cannot be conducted in this manner by the Deputy Commissioner in an arbitrary manner against the earlier directions of this Honourable Court without publishing proper notice even though the bidders may be few for the limited shops. I have told the Administrative Officer to fix the date of auction as 4.10.2021 in consultation with the Deputy Commissioner and publish a notice and then conduct the auction since I was at Sabarimala during this period on official duty. Accordingly, a written notice was published on 30.9.2021, and auction was conducted only on 4.10.2021 and few shops were taken on auction by the traders and the auction period is also over.
9
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
have informed the Administrative Officer to publish the auction notice well in advance by fixing the date of auction on 8.11.2021 at 10.30AM under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner. Thus, an auction notice was published on the notice board and some other conspicuous places in the locality of the temple. Auction notice also was shown to many of the prospective bidders including traders in occupation of the temporary shops and their signatures were taken in the auction notice with respect to this auction. A copy of the auction notice dated 1.11.2021 published in this regard along with the signatures of the prospective bidders and others is produced herewith and marked as Annexure C1. As per this notice, I went to Ettumanoor Sree Mahadevar Temple to oversee and supervise the auction being conducted on 8.11.2021 at 10.30AM. Good number of prospective bidders came to participate in the auction. The Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Administrative Officer and other staff of the Devaswom as well as the Secretary and members of the Temple Advisory Committee also were present. I conducted deliberations with the officials stating about the ground reality that this year also how far pilgrims to Sabarimala will come during Mandalam-Makaravilakku season is an uncertainty and as such we cannot expect the same crowd which were available prior to the spreading of Covid 19 Pandemic.
10
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
11
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
as Annexure C2. All the persons gathered in the hall for participating in the auction unanimously voiced that as always done in the past, as per the rules of TDB for conducting auction, only the just previous years amount can only be taken into account as base amount and 10% more can be added with it to commence the auction for the current season.”
12
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
supervise the tender proceedings, that the minimum tender amount for Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME will be the tender amount for the previous year with 10% increase. At any rate, considering the situation prevailing in the State on account Covid 19 pandemic, the 3rd respondent should not have insisted on such a condition in the auction for the current year.
13
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
Mahadeva Temple was Rs.67,000/- for the year 2018-19, Rs.67,300/-for the year 2019-20 and Rs.15,000/- for the year 2020-21. Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple is a major temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board and it is an edathavalam for Sabarimala pilgrims.
14
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
into account as base amount and 10% more can be added for fixing the minimum tender amount, the auction was postponed and Report No.69 is filed before this Court for necessary directions. The auction mahazar prepared on 08.11.2021 is placed on record as Annexure C2 along with Report No.69 filed by the learned Advocate Commissioner.
15
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
by the learned Standing Counsel, the very same criteria are being adopted in all temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board. When the said criteria adopted by the Board is in force, the petitioner or any other trader cannot insist that the minimum tender amount (upset price) should be the average of the tender amount for the previous year with 10% increase. Therefore, the 3rd respondent cannot be found fault with in not accepting the suggestion made by the learned Advocate Commissioner that the minimum tender amount during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME can be fixed taking the average auction amount of two previous years with 10% increase.
and another [2016 SCC OnLine Kerala 12005] - Judgment dated 02.06.2016 in W.P.(C)No.18841 and 19098 of 2016 - the challenge was against the revision of vazhipadu rates brought in by the Travancore Devaswom Board as per ROC dated 01.04.2016. The Division Bench noticed that the Travancore Devaswom Board, which is vested with the authority to
16
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
administer the religious institutions falling under its control, also has the power to regulate the activities, except those matters which relate to issues connected with rituals and practices, which fall within the domain of the Thantries, Poojaries, etc. Issues relating to the rates of vazhipadu gained attention during different stages as and when the Travancore Devaswom Board had revised the rates or had refused to revise the rates. In so far as the rates are concerned, the courts cannot substitute its wisdom or ideas about the rates for commodities or articles for the performance of poojas utilising articles and materials. It would not be wise for the judiciary to
step into that area, unless of course it is shown that the action has been taken in a totally perverse and unreasonable manner unguided by any yardstick whatsoever.
17
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
as the amount specifically due for the purpose of the activity being carried on in connection with each pooja or homam. The Division Bench found that it is muthalkootu that adds on to the income of the Travancore Devaswom Board which will have to be appropriately utilised for running the different establishments of the Travancore Devaswom Board and also for paying salaries and supporting the infrastructure and activities of Travancore Devaswom Board. Therefore, a revision in the mothalkootu cannot ipso facto be treated as something that requires intervention through judicial power. In so far as the price of dravyams, etc. are concerned, it depends on various aspects that may also depend upon the local conditions. It would also have some nexus to the type of the temple, the practice and the total number of particular types of poojas or homams that happen in each such temple. This is best left to the administrative sector rather than for judicial review.
18
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
devotee of Kottarakkara Sree Maha Ganapathy Temple that the increase in the rate of ‘unniappam’ made by the Devaswom is to an unconscionable extent, without any regard to the nature and sanctity of 'vazhipadu', which is an offering to the deity. It was also stated that every opportunity is being taken by the Devaswom to make it an 'industrial activity' and to procure undue advantage, under the guise of necessity to enhance the rate, with reference to the price escalation of the raw materials and labour. The version of the Devaswom, as put forth by the learned Standing Counsel, was that fixation of price of vazhipadu item is purely an administrative action at the hands
of the Devaswom, which does not call for judicial scrutiny. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of the Division Bench in Anoop S. [2016 SCC OnLine Kerala 12005] . It was also pointed out that unification of the rate of the various 'vazhipadu' items was felt necessary by the Board and it was accordingly, that ROC dated 01.04.2016 was issued, seeking to implement the revised rates, which was the subject matter of consideration in Anoop S. The Division Bench observed in
19
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
paragraph 6 of that judgment, that insofar as the rates are concerned, the courts cannot substitute its wisdom or ideas about the rates for commodities or articles for performance of poojas utilising articles and materials. In the very next sentence, the Division Bench observed that it would not be wise for the judiciary to step into that area, unless of course it is shown that the action has been taken in a totally perverse and unreasonable manner unguided by any yardstick whatsoever. The Division Bench in Radhakrishna Pillai N. found that this by itself is sufficient to indicate that, if any arbitrary exercise is demonstrated as pursued by the Devaswom, it is quite possible
for this Court to intervene in larger public interest, especially to protect the rights and liberties of the devotees to the requisite extent.
20
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
establishments of the Board and also for paying salaries and supporting its infrastructure and activities. This Court cannot substitute its wisdom or ideas about the manner in which the minimum tender amount (upset price) has to be fixed by the Board. As held in the decisions referred to supra, it would not be wise for this Court to step into that area, unless of course it is shown that the action has been taken by the Board in a totally perverse and unreasonable manner unguided by any yardstick whatsoever.
21
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
previous three years with 10% increase. The very same criteria are being adopted in all temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The said Board order is not under challenge in this writ petition.
temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, for the period from 15.11.2021 to 20.01.2022.
Board and others [2015 (2) KHC 714] , a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] is a party, directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to incorporate
22
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (xiii) in Para 6 of the order dated 09.02.2015 in W.P.(C)No.3206 of 2014 with necessary modifications in all tender notifications issued by the Board to conduct public auction of the right to open temporary stalls/shops on the Devaswom property of all the temples under the Devaswom, treating it as general guidelines. In that writ petition, this Court was dealing with the irregularities pointed out in the conduct of the public auction of the right to conduct temporary stalls/ shops on the Devaswom property of Sree Vallabha Maha Temple, Thiruvalla, during the annual festival season. Clauses (i) to (xiii) in Para 6 of the order dated 09.02.2015 read thus:
"(i) The auction shall be confined to 49 plots identified in the site sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvalla and produced before this Court;
(ii) The upset price for the plots shall be as mentioned in the statement prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvalla and produced before this Court;
(iii) The auction shall be conducted in the presence of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board, who shall ensure that
23
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
the intending bidders are not prevented in any manner by persons with vested interests. The Chief Vigilance Officer shall also seek Police assistance for the smooth conduct of the auction, if found necessary;
(iv) At the time of auction, the bidders shall carry their voter's identity card issued by the Election Commission of India or any other proof of identity recognised by the Government and shall also furnish a self-attested photostat copy of the identity card to the Officer conducting the auction.
(v) The intending bidders shall produce the requisite EMD by way of Demand Draft drawn in their name.
(vi) No bidder shall be permitted to bid for more than one plot. If there are vacant plots after the auction, such plots shall be put to auction on the very next day at the very same time. In the absence of sufficient number of bidders on the second day, more than one plot can be allotted to a single bidder;
(vii) No licensee shall be permitted to put up more than one stall/ shop on a single plot;
(viii) No person shall be permitted to conduct any stall/shop in an area other than that shown in the sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvalla;
(ix) No licensee shall have the right to re-auction/sub-let the plot to a third party and if any such instance comes to the notice of the Board, the Board shall be entitled to cancel such license forthwith and evict the licensee from
24
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
the plot, by forfeiting the entire license fee. But the Board shall give the licensee a reasonable time to remove his articles;
(xi) No licensee shall be permitted to occupy the plot allotted to him beyond the period of the license. But it would be open to the Board to give a grace period up to one week, after collecting proportionate license fee, to enable the licensee to remove his articles from the plot or for selling the balance articles;
(xii) No member of the Temple Advisory Committee or their near relations, or the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board or their near relations shall be entitled to participate in the auction either personally or as a nominee of another;
(xiii) No bidder shall interfere with the conduct of any religious rites, rituals, customs, practises and other ceremonies of the temple. Bidders shall be bound to follow the temple manners and instructions issued by the Board from time to time, failing which he will be summarily evicted after forfeiting the entire license fee."
17. In K.N. Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom
Board and others [2015 SCC OnLine Kerala 11672] , a
25
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] is a party, held that, in view of the judgment in Sreekumar V. , any public auction of the right to open temporary shops/stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple temple and also in the Kovil Padam Road owned by the Devaswom can be conducted only in terms of the general guidelines framed in that judgment. By the judgment dated 27.03.2015 that writ petition was disposed of with the following directions;
“1. The Travancore Devaswom Board shall conduct public auction of the right to open temporary shops/stalls in the premises of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple and also in the Kovil Padam Road strictly in terms of the guidelines issued by this Court in the judgment dated 19.3.2015 in W.P.(C)No.3206 of 2014 and TDB Report No.13 of 2015, with necessary modifications.
26
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
it is stated that, the petitioner and other similar vendors, nearly
27
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
seven in number, are the usual bidders, who bid space in Devaswom ground for conducting shops on a seasonal basis. For the Navaratri festival, the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner conducted the auction on 30.09.2021, without any tender notice, to favour some outsiders to come into the field. The petitioner and other similar vendors, styling themselves as ‘usual bidders’ cannot claim any preferential right in the public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Temple festivals. The officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall take necessary steps to ensure that the conduct of trade in the stalls/shops is strictly in terms of the directions contained in the two decisions referred to supra and the guidelines issued by the Board.
28
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
for the period from 15.11.2021 to 20.01.2022, on 14.11.2021
at 10.30 am.
List Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 before Bench on 16.11.2021 .
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE
Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE
PV
29
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25040/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 30.09.2021 BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 01.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
30
W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010
APPENDIX IN REPORT NO.69 IN D.B.A.NO.2 OF 2010
PETITIONER EXHIBITS ANNEXURE C1 COPY OF AUCTION NOTICE DATED 01.11.2021 PUBLISHED IN THIS REGARD WITH THE SIGNATURES OF THE PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS AND OTHERS
ANNEXURE C2 COPY OF MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE TDB WITH RESPECT TO THE AUCTION CONDUCTED ON 08.11.2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the 3rd respondent is entitled to fix the minimum tender amount based on the average of the last three years' auction amounts with a 10% increase in contravention of the petitioner's request f
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief given the Board Order governing auction criteria and the unchallengeable nature of such fixation in matters of public auction rates.
Whether the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner seeking urgent directions for conducting the auction requires any judicial intervention under the established court guidelines.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anoop S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and anotherExplained¶9
Anoop S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and another [2016 SCC OnLine Kerala 12005] · Who else cites this
Radhakrishna Pillai N. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and othersExplained¶11
Radhakrishna Pillai N. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2018 (1) KHC 599]
Sreekumar V. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and othersApplied¶16
Sreekumar V. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2015 (2) KHC 714]
K.N. Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board and othersApplied¶17
K.N. Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2015 SCC OnLine Kerala 11672] · Who else cites this
K. Vineeth Kumar
Travancore Devaswom Board
Devaswom Commissioner
Deputy Devaswom Commissioner
Anil K. Narendran
P.G. Ajithkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
