The court dismissed a writ petition seeking refund of auction deposits and extension of temple franchise contracts due to pandemic lockdown. The bench held that subsequent developments cannot alter liabilities under concluded contracts.
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 MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 7131 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
BY ADV SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV.SRI.G.BIJU, SC FOR TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.7131 of 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
The Travancore Devaswom Board, hereinafter referred for brevity 'the TDB' only, auctioned off the right to collect Neeranjanam residue from Ettumanoor Devaswom to the first petitioner, for the period from 1.4.2020 to 31.3.2021. The second petitioner was the successful bidder in the auction to conduct the Devaswom Cloak Room at Ettumanoor Temple for the same period. According to the petitioners, they have deposited the entire auction amount on the date of auction itself. To be precise, the first petitioner deposited the auction amount of Rs.1,52,000/- on 28.2.2020 and the second petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.1,34,600/- on 22.2.2020. However, as part of Covid-19 pandemic health protocol there was restriction on the entry of devotees in the temple. According to them, the said situation continued up to October, 2020 and in such circumstances, the 3rd respondent orally offered to refund 50% of the bid amount after the final decision in the then pending litigations on similar issues before the High Court. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent notified auction of different rights including the rights which the petitioners had purchased during the previous year. It is their further
W.P.(C)No.7131 of 2021
3
case that the attempt to auction off the rights which they bid last year turned futile as there was none to bid for the minimum amount fixed by the TDB. Since the minimum amount is further lowered there is likelihood of someone bidding the rights in the auction next time, it is apprehended. In such circumstances, the petitioners requested the 2nd and 3rd respondents either to extend the period of their contracts for another six months or refund the proportionate amount for six months from the deposited amount. Now, TDB is refusing to refund any amount though they reiterated their requests as per Exts.P3 and P4 representations. The captioned writ petition is filed in the said circumstances with the following payers:-
W.P.(C)No.7131 of 2021
4
till a final decision is taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P3 and P4 by the 1st respondent."
learned Standing Counsel for the TDB for the respondents.
G.Harikumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2020 (6) KLT Online 1043, in which one among us (C.T.Ravikumar, J.) was a party,
W.P.(C)No.7131 of 2021
5
to reject the contention based on Section 56 of the Contract Act. Obviously, the prayer for proportionate reduction of auction amount and refund or for extension of the period of contract were also rejected.
In the above circumstances, this Court does not find this as
a fit case calling for interference or to give any direction as sought for by the petitioners. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN Judge
TKS
W.P.(C)No.7131 of 2021
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7131/2021
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.2.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST REQUEST MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 16.8.2021. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST REQUEST MADE BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 16.8.2021.
TKS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether contractual rights acquired by petitioners should be extended or refunded proportionately due to pandemic restrictions preventing temple operations.
Whether subsequent developments justifying a claim for relief from contractual obligations against public charitable institutions.
Whether interference is warranted when similar writ petitions have already been dismissed regarding franchise rights in contested temple properties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Travancore Devaswom Board v. Thanath InternationalReferred¶32
(2004) 13 SCC 44 · Who else cites this
G.Harikumar v. Travancore Devaswom BoardDistinguished¶33
(2020 (6) KLT Online 1043)
Mohanacharith
Mohandas V.S
Travancore Devaswom Board
Devaswom Commissioner
Assistant Devaswom Commissioner
C.T.Ravikumar
Murali Purushothaman Mon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
