Temple contractors sought extensions, refunds and relief from contractual dues following COVID-19 restrictions. The court held that Section 56 did not apply where business remained possible during the remaining contract term. It rejected entitlement to extensions or refunds and dismissed all petitions without costs.
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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 2271 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 C. PRADEEP AGED 57 YEARS S/O.LATE R.CHANDRASEKHARAN, MANNARUPARAMBU, KANJIPADOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 005.
2 C.RAJAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O.LATE CHAKRAPANI, ARUPARAYIL, KANJIPADOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 005.
3 RATHEESH BABU AGED 56 YEARS S/O.LATE M.K.PADMANABHAN, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL, KANJIPADOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 005.
4 K.S.JOBY AGED 53 YEARS S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, SREEDHARAM, KANJIPADOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 005.
5 L.P.JAYACHANDRAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O.LATE LAKSHMANAPILLAI, PERUMPARA, PARAVOOR, PUNNAPRA.
BY ADV K.R.SUNIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ANNEXE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
2
SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).4111/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4111 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K.V GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,AGED 75 YEARS S/O.LATE VASU PILLAI, AMBILI VILLA, MALAKUNNAM P.O., CHANGANACHERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686535.
BY ADVS.
V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SRI.P.K.SASIKUMAR SMT.SMITHA (EZHUPUNNA) SRI.DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT SMT.CHITRA JOHNSON
RESPONDENTS:
SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).2271/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4462 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., P.B.NO.2024, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.SANIL S.K., AGED 48 YEARS, SON OF K.SUDHAKARAN NAIR.
BY ADVS.
B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.P.S.GIREESH SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).2271/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4831 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1
ANILKUMAR P.K.,AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.K.S. KUTTAPPAN, PANTHALAT HOUSE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, THALAPPARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
6
BY ADVS. K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) SMT.T.V.NEEMA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA
RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).2271/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 5233 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
DEVARAJAN .M.K,AGED 66 YEARS S/O KUNJAN, MADATHIKUNNEL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHI P.O., IDUKKI-685606.
BY ADVS. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SRI.JOICE GEORGE SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE SHRI.TOM E. JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).2271/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SATHIKUMAR AGED 56 YEARS S/O.DIVAKARAN, 'THIRUVATHIRA', PONGUMMOODU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 691 511
BY ADVS. C.R.JAYAKUMAR SRI.SAJU J PANICKER SRI.NOBEL RAJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.
SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).2271/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
9
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
Since these writ petitions involve common issues, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
W.P. (C) No. 2271/2021
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
10
by Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act and therefore, void. The petitioners submitted Ext. P6 series representations before the TDB requesting to extend the period of contract for eight months, i.e., upto 30.11.2021 and to exonerate them from remitting the balance installments. Since the TDB did not take any action on their representations, they have filed this writ petition to declare the contract as void in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act and for return of the amounts remitted by them or in the alternative to direct the TDB to extent the period of contract till 30.11.2021.
W.P (C) No. 4111/2021
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
11
could be conducted by the petitioner pursuant to the auctioning of rights. However, the TDB has issued Ext. P1 notice informing the petitioner that if the balance auction amount is not remitted within 10 days from the receipt of notice, the petitioner will be blacklisted. Though the petitioner submitted Ext. P4 representation before the third respondent, the same was not considered. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging Ext. P1 and for direction to forebear the respondents from blacklisting him.
W.P (C) No. 4462/2021
Federation Ltd., was awarded the rights to collect coconuts from Sannidhanam and Pampa for the period from 11.11.2019 to 31.10.2020 by the TDB. According to the petitioner, due to COVID-19 pandemic and lock down declared consequently, in March 2020, for over eight months; there was hardly any collection of coconuts possible and the petitioner suffered huge
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
12
loss. The petitioner submitted Exts. P3 and P4 representations before the TDB requesting to appropriately compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered. However, those representations are not considered by the respondents. Therefore, this writ petition is filed for direction to TDB to consider Exts. P3 and P4 representations within a time limit.
W.P (C) No. 4831/2021
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
13
amount or to extent the period of contract to the next financial year, they were rejected by Exts.P8 and P9 and the petitioners are called upon to remit the balance bid amount vide Exts. P10 to P15 notices. The petitioners contend that the contract could not be performed for the reason of 'Force Majeure' and that the contract is frustrated and the petitioners are to be exonerated from the liability of payment of 50% of the balance bid amount.
W.P (C) No. 5233/2021
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
14
temples under the TDB remained closed from April to August and no activity could be carried out during this period and the contract became frustrated and in terms of section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, the contract has become impossible to act upon and is void. Though the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 representation to the TDB officials requesting for refund of the bid amount remitted by the petitioner, the same was rejected by Exts. P4 and P4 (a) and the petitioner was asked to remit the balance 50% of the contract amount. In the said circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition for direction to the TDB to refund the 50% of the contract amount remitted by him, with interest.
W.P.(C) No. 7474/2021
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
15
Kaavalloorkonam Devaswom for the financial year 2020-2021. However, due to the restrictions imposed by the Government due to COVID-19 pandemic, there was shortfall in sales and the petitioner suffered loss. Though the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Minister for Devaswom with Ext. P6 representation seeking permission to continue the contract for the next financial year and the Hon'ble Minister made over the representation to the TDB, no action has been taken thereon by TDB and accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court for direction to TDB to consider Ext. P6 representation and to extend the contract for the period 2021-2022.
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
16
restrictions imposed by the Government on entry to temples due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the contract could not be performed for the reason of 'Force Majeure' and that the contract is frustrated and hit by Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act and therefore void. Accordingly, some of the petitioners have sought for extension of period of contract for the next season/ financial year and others have sought for refund of the bid amount and for exoneration from the liability of payment of the balance bid amount.
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
17
year unless they could succeed in the next year's auction. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Travancore Devaswom Board v . Thanath International reported in (2004) 13 SCC 44 . Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said decision read as follows:-
“12.The law on the subject is well settled. In the
case of Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India this Court has held that the Contract Act, 1872 does not enable a party to a contract to ignore the express covenants thereof. It is held that the Contract Act does not permit a party to claim payment of consideration for performance of contract at rates different from the stipulated rates, on some vague plea of equity. It is held that in the performance of a contract, one often faces, in the course of carrying it out, a turn of events which are not anticipated e.g. an abnormal rise or fall in prices, sudden depreciation of currency, an unexpected obstacle to execution or the like. It is held that these do not affect the bargain that has been made. It is held that there is
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
18
no general liberty reserved to the courts to absolve a party from liability to perform his part of the contract, merely because on account of an uncontemplated turn of events, the performance of the contract has become onerous. It is held that compensation quantum meruit is awarded when the price is not fixed by the contract. It is held that for work done or services rendered pursuant to the terms of contract, compensation quantum meruit cannot be awarded.
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
19
events cannot be a reason for the petitioners to contend that ignoring the specific terms of contract, right should be extended. The petitioners have no legal right to claim extension of period of contract for the next season/financial year.
“8. Doctrine of frustration or otherwise known as doctrine of impossibility is based on the legal provision for the discharge
of a contract, subsequent to its formation, in the event of
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
20
change of circumstances rendering the contract illegal or physically impossible of performance. Impossibilium nulla obligatio est is an accepted Latin Maxim meaning that there is no obligation to do impossible things. Similarly, the scope of application of the doctrine of 'Lex non cogit ad Impossibilia' , that is, the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform, the Roman Maxim 'Nemo Tenetur ad Impossibilia' , no one is bound to do an impossibility, have no application in the fact situation. Here no one has a case that the first part of Section 56 has any application. The petitioner wanted to bring his case under the second part, saying that due to supervening reasons, that is, introduction of complete lock-down due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic, it became impossible for him to perform his part of the contract and thus the contract stands frustrated. We have no doubt that on his own showing, it is brought out by the petitioner that the second part of Section 56 also has no application. It is evident that from 17.08.2020 onwards, he could do business. The term of the contract is up
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
21
to 31.03.2021. If it was an absolute impossibility, he would not have been able to perform the contract and supply items as required under the terms of the contract. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take shelter under Section 56 of the Contract Act. For the very same reason, his argument that he has suffered a huge loss of Rs. 30 lakhs a month also cannot be looked into by the Court.
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
22
contemplated by Section 56 of the Contract Act is not confined to something which is not humanly possible. If the performance of a contract becomes impracticable or useless having regard to the object and purpose of the parties had in view then it must be held that the performance of the contract has become impossible. But the supervening events should take away the basis of the contract and it should be of such a character that it strikes at the root of the contract
(emphasis supplied). As noticed, here even the petitioner has not shown that the supervening events have struck at the root of the contract. In other words, it has not become humanly impossible to perform the contract. Even though for some time in the beginning, it had become more onerous to get returns as expected by him, after lifting the ban in entering of devotees in temple, devotees have resumed visiting the temple and thus the petitioner has started supplying materials as required under the contract. After starting to supply materials, he cannot turn round and say that the contract has become impossible of performance and
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
23
frustrated. He cannot blow hot and cold at the same time”.
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
24
do business during the rest of the term of the contract on lifting the restrictions, it cannot be said that the contract has become impossible for performance and therefore, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act has no application. Frustration of contract happens when the execution of contract is wholly impossible. The supervening events followed by the pandemic have not made the execution of contract wholly impossible, though it might have made the performance of contract more onerous and difficult. The petitioners cannot contend that there is frustration of contract. COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions imposed and the consequent inability to conduct business cannot be a ground for extension of the petitioners' right to conduct business during the next pilgrim season or for getting refund of license fee. Taking note of the uniform and consistent stand of this Court in identical circumstance in v . Sabarimala Vyapari Vyavasai Ekopana Samathi Travancore Devaswom Board (judgment dated 13.10.2020 in
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
25
W.P. (C) No.21621/2020) ( of which one of us, Ravikumar, J. was a member ) and other identical cases, this Court in G.Harikumar' s case observed that the bidders cannot be permitted to beat a retreat to their convenience whenever unfavourable turn of events take place and dismissed the said writ petition. We do not find any reason to take a different stand in these writ petitions and to give any direction as sought for by the petitioners. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE
spc/
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
26
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4111/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.02.2021. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 08.08.2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY SUB INSPECTOR POLICE, CHINGAVANAM DATED 09.06.2020 PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNMENT DECISION. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.02.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
27
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4462/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY | OF CERTIFICATE NO.130 DATED |
|---|---|---|
| 21.11.2019 PETITIONER. |
ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO |
|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY | OF CERTIFICATE NO.131 DATED |
| 21.11.2019 PETITIONER. |
ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO |
|
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY DATED 25.9 BEFORE 2ND |
OF REPRESENTATION NO.SCC/2019-20 .2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY | OF REPRESENTATION NO.SCC/2019-20 |
| DATED 13.1 BEFORE THE |
1.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER PRESIDENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
28
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4831/2021
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY | OF THE GUIDELINES FOR TENDERS |
|---|---|---|
| PUBLISHED BOARD. |
BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM | |
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY PETITIONER BEFORE THE |
OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 1ST DATED 12.08.2020, SUBMITTED 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY | OF THE REPRESENTATION OF 2ND |
| PETITIONER RESPONDENT |
DATED 10.08.2020 BEFORE THE 7TH . |
|
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY PETITIONER THE 5TH RE |
OF THE REPRESENTATION OF 3RD DATED 6.2.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE SPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY PETITIONER BEFORE THE |
OF THE REPRESENTATION OF 4TH DATED 06.02.2021 SUBMITTED 5TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY PETITIONER BEFORE THE |
OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 5TH DATED 04.08.2020 SUBMITTED 5TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY | OF THE REPRESENTATION OF 6TH |
| PETITIONER BEFORE THE |
DATED 09.12.2020 SUBMITTED 7TH RESPONDENT. |
|
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY 2.2.2021. |
OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY 4.2.2021. |
OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY | OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH |
| RESPONDENT | TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED |
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
29
16.02.2021.
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY RESPONDENT 25.01.2021 |
OF T TO . |
HE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 7TH THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P12 | TRUE COPY RESPONDENT 14.02.2021 |
OF T TO . |
HE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED |
| EXHIBIT P13 | TRUE COPY RESPONDENT 14.02.2021 |
OF T TO . |
HE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED |
| EXHIBIT P14 | TRUE COPY RESPONDENT 14.02.2021 |
OF T TO . |
HE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED |
| EXHIBIT P15 | TRUE COPY RESPONDENT 25.01.2021 |
OF T TO . |
HE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 7TH THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED |
| EXHIBIT P16 | TRUE COPY BLACK LAW |
OF DICT |
THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE IONARY. |
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
30
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5233/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
| EXHIBIT P1 | THE TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION DATED 2.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THIRUNAKKARA DEVASWOM. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P1(A) | THE TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION DATED 2.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THIRUNAKKARA KANIKKA MANDAPAM DEVASWOM. |
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6/3/2020 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF 50% OF THE BID AMOUNT (RS. 5,75,550) WITH RESPECT TO THIRUNAKKARA DEVASWOM. |
| EXHIBIT P2(A) | THE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6/3/2020 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF 50% OF THE BID AMOUNT (RS. 5,75,550) WITH RESPECT TO THIRUNAKKARA KANIKKA MANDAPAM DEVASWOM. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1/7/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.7 DATED 9/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P4(A) | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.8 DATED 9/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
31
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7474/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
| EXHIBIT P1 THE THE |
TRUE 2ND RE |
COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY SPONDENT. |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 THE 24.2 THE |
TRUE .2020 REMITT |
COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED VIDE RECEIPT NO.21620 EVIDENCING ANCE OF RS.83,200/- |
| EXHIBIT P3 THE PREP |
TRUE ARED B |
LEGIBLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P2 Y THE PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P4 THE 24/2 THE |
TRUE /2020 REMITT |
COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED VIDE RECEIPT NO.216019 EVIDENCING ANCE OF RS. 1,55,000/- |
| EXHIBIT P5 THE PREP |
TRUE ARED B |
LEGIBLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P4 Y THE PETITIONER |
| EXHIBIT P6 THE 15.2 HON' THE |
TRUE .2021 BLE M STATE |
COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED DIRECTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE INISTER FOR DEVASWOM AFFAIRS OF OF KERALA. |
| EXHIBIT P7 THE PREP |
TRUE ARED B |
LEGIBLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P6 Y THE PETITIONER |
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
32
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2271/2021
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONDITIONS/SPECIAL CONDITIONS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19/01/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/01/2021. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 15/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR KALARKODE DEVASWOM. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 18/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR MUKATHALA DEVASWOM. EXHIBIT P6 NIL. EXHIBIT P6(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 11/01/2021 SENT BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 12/01/2021 SENT BY THE 4TH PETITIONERS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 12/01/2021 SENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6(D) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 15/01/2021 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6(E) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED
W.P.(C).2271/2021 & Conn.
33
15/01/2021 SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6(F) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 15/01/2021 SENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6(G) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 15/01/2021 SENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6(H) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 15/01/2021 SENT BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM CAME IN "JANMA BHOOMI DAILY" DATED 30/1/2021 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 25.01.2021 VIDE NO.ROC NO.8763/2016/NS-2 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
2 issues framed by the court
Did COVID-19 restrictions frustrate the temple business contracts under Section 56 when business remained possible after restrictions were lifted?
Were the contractors entitled to extension into the next season, refund of fees or exemption from paying the balance contractual dues?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Travancore Devaswom Board v. Thanath InternationalApplied¶170
(2004) 13 SCC 44 · Who else cites this
G.Harikumar v. Travancore Devaswom BoardFollowed¶181
2021 (2) KLT SN 17 (Case No.16) [2020 (6) KLT OnLine 1043]
W.P. (C) No.21621/2020Relied on¶205
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. PRADEEP
THE SECRETARY, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT
THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
