Dismissed

Anil Kumar R., v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC18 Oct 2022WP(C)/25350/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition seeking dissolution of a Temple Advisory Committee, despite the petitioner's default in Kuthaka rights payments. The court deprecates the Board's inaction in recovering dues and directs *suo motu* proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to initiate *suo motu* proceedings to blacklist the defaulter and Board officials; established a permanent list case (DBP) for coercive recovery with State necessarily involved.

Anil Kumar R., Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

&

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 25350 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 ANIL KUMAR R., AGED 53 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, KOCHUPARACKAL, TEMPLE NAGAR, KOTTARAKARA. P.O., KOLLAM-691506.

¶10

2 SUNIL KUMAR. G., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, SUMAVILASAM, KIZHEKKEKARA, KOTTARAKARA, P.O. KOLLAM-691506.

¶11

BY ADVS.SHABU SREEDHARAN

¶12

SIDHARTHAN V.K.
JINSON OUSEPH
CHITRA VIJAYAN
ABDUL HAMEED
NIMISHA GEORGE
APARNA M. NAIR

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.

¶15

2 THE DEVSWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.

¶16

3 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - KOTTARAKKARA GROUP, KOTTARAKARA. P.O., KOLLAM-691506.

¶17

-2-

¶18

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶19

4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KOTTARAKARA SRI MAHA GANAPATI TEMPLE KOTTARAKKARA. P.O. KOLLAM-691506.

¶20

5 THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KOTTARAKARA SRI MAHA GANAPATI TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VALSALA KUMARI, KANNAMKONNAM VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKRA, KOTTARAKARA. P.O., KOLLAM-691506.

¶21

6 R. ANIL KUMAR, PRESIDENT, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITEE, KOTTARAKARA SRI MAHA GANAPATI TEMPLE, MUKULUVILA VEEDU, PADIYATHEKARA, KOTTARAKARA. P.O., KOLLAM-691506.

¶22

BY ADVS.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶25

-3-

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶28

The petitioners, who are devotees of Lord Ganapathy of Kottarakkara Sri Maha Ganapathi Temple, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to dissolve the 5^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee forthwith and constitute a new Temple Advisory Committee as early as possible according to law.

¶29

On 05.08.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions.

¶30

On 12.08.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board pointed out that the 1^st petitioner has defaulted payment of an amount of Rs.67,00,000/- in respect of Kuthaka right for the year 2020-21 for conducting pooja stall in Kottarakkara PD Manikandeswaram Temple. The learned Standing Counsel made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of the judgment dated 06.07.2021 in

¶31

-4-

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶33

W.P.(C)No.13039 of 2020, in which the 1^st petitioner herein was the 2^nd petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid fact was not disclosed in the present writ petition, since it is one filed seeking dissolution of the 5^th respondent Ad-hoc Committee in Kottarakkara PD Sri Maha Ganapathy Temple and for constituting a Temple Advisory Committee under Section 31A of the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board was directed to get instructions on the action, if any, taken against the 1^st petitioner, after the judgment of this Court dated 06.07.2021 in W.P.(C)No.13039 of 2020, for recovering the defaulted payment and whether he is holding Kuthaka right of any temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶34

On 29.08.2022, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the 1^st petitioner is yet to pay the defaulted amount of Rs.67,00,000/- in respect of Kuthaka right for the year 2020-21 for conducting pooja stall in Kottarakkara PD Manikandeswaram Temple. From the submissions made by

¶35

-5-

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶37

the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, this Court found that, though there is a specific provision in the tender notification, which enables the Board to initiate recovery proceedings against the Kuthaka holder, who has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount with 18% penal

¶38

interest, the Board is yet to take any coercive steps against the 1^st petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel sought time to get further instructions in the matter. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Board had issued an order dated 06.08.2022, extending the term of the Temple Advisory Committee, which is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.26568 of 2022 and the petitioners in this writ petition have not amended the reliefs sought for, in order to challenge the said order dated 06.08.2022.

¶39

On 23.09.2022, when this writ petition was taken

¶40

up for consideration, this Court passed a detailed order, which reads thus;

¶41

“Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration along with connected matter, i.e., W.P.(C)No.26568 of 2022, Sri.V.K.Sidharthan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, this

¶42

-6-

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶44

writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed, in view of the interim order dated 01.09.2022 in W.P.(C)No.26568 of 2022.

¶45

On 12.08.2022, when this writ petition is came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the 1^st petitioner has defaulted an amount of Rs.67,00,000/in respect of kuthaka right for the year 2021-2022 for conducting the pooja stall in Kottarakara P.D. Manikandeshwara Temple. By the order dated 12.08.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions on the action, if any, taken against the 1^st petitioner, after the judgment of this Court dated 06.07.2022 in W.P.(C)No.13039 of 2020 for recovering the defaulted payment and whether he is holding kuthaka right in any temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶46

In the order dated 29.08.2022, this Court noticed that though there is a specific provision in the tender notification, which enables the Board to initiate recovery proceedings against the kuthaka holder to recover the defaulted payment towards balance bid amount with 18% penal interest, the Board is yet to take any coercive steps against the 1^st petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel sought time to get further instructions and accordingly the matter was adjourned.

¶47

The attempt made by Adv.Sri.V.K.Sidharthan, the learned counsel for the petitioners to get this writ

¶48

-7-

¶49

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶50

petition dismissed as not pressed, without mentioning about the aforesaid orders has to be viewed seriously.

¶51

On 11.10.2022, when the matter was taken up for

¶52

further consideration, Adv.Sri.Baby Jose, the learned counsel who represented Adv.Sri.Shabu Sreedharan, submitted that the 1^st petitioner has already remitted Rs.67,00,000/- towards defaulted payment in respect of Kuthaka right for the year 2021-22 for conducting the pooja stall in Kottarakkara P.D.Manikandeswara Temple. The learned Standing Counsel sought time to get instructions.

¶53

Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that the 1^st petitioner is yet to make payment towards the balance bid amount, which comes to Rs.67,50,100/-.

¶54

Despite the aforesaid fact, the Administrative Officer of the said temple and also the 3^rd respondent Assistant Commissioner have not taken any steps against the 1^st petitioner for recovering the balance bid amount. The inaction on the part of the 1^st respondent Board and its officials in initiating coercive steps against the 1^st petitioner, openly

¶55

-8-

¶56

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶57

flouting the law laid down by this Court in Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022 SCC OnLine Ker. 1642] and Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board

¶58

[ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 1091] has to be dealt with appropriately.

¶59

9. In M.V.Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara

¶60

[(1979) 2 SCC 65] , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus;

¶61

“4. There is some controversy on the question whether defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs.21,500, which

¶62

-9-

¶63

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶64

was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the

¶65

-10-

¶66

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶67

aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied)

¶68

10. In Rajani P. Kuttan and another v. State of

¶69

Kerala and others [2021 (6) KHC 513] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that among the 1250 Temples managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only 60 major Temples are self-sufficient and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. The total number

¶70

of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Travancore Devaswom Board is 5692 and the total number of pensioners is 5749. The major source of revenue of the Travancore

¶71

-11-

¶72

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶73

Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the Temples. Paragraph 59 of the said decision reads thus:

¶74

The Financial position of the Devaswom Board:- The competent officer of the Devaswom Board filed an affidavit dated 14.06.2021 stating its financial position. It is submitted that there are 1250 temples under the Administrative Control of the Devaswom Board. The total number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Devaswom Board is 5692, and the total number of pensioners is 5749. It is further submitted that the major sources of revenue of the Devaswom Board are the income received by way of offerings from devotees, the amount received from vazhipadu, and the revenue generated through the auction of the temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples. Besides this, the Devaswom Board gets an approximate sum of 14 crores per annum by way of the rent of the buildings owned by it. The annual contribution from the State Government under Article 290A of the Constitution of India is Rs.80 lakhs. It is further submitted that

¶75

-12-

¶76

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶77

among the 1250 temples managed by the Devaswom Board, only 60 major temples are self-sufficient, and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. Now, due to the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, the temples remain closed, and the major source of income has come down. The Devaswom Board is finding it difficult even to pay the salary of the existing employees. The pleadings regarding the financial position of the Devaswom Board in the affidavit dated 14.06.2021 have not been controverted by the petitioners. (underline supplied)

¶78

In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom

¶79

Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such

¶80

-13-

¶81

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶82

acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions

¶83

from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

¶84

12. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan

¶85

Nair [(2013) 3 KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to

¶86

protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has

¶87

-14-

¶88

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶89

been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings.

¶90

In Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom

¶91

Board [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642] [judgment dated 09.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 2254 of 2022] a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, was dealing with a case in which Kuthaka right for running Aymanam Sri. Narasimha-swami Auditorium (sadyalayam) constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was auctioned for a period of two years from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021, for Rs. 2,41,000/-. The average monthly income generated from the said building constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board by spending several lakhs of rupees was only Rs. 10,000/-. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.V.

¶92

Ramasubbiar [(1979) 2 SCC 65] this Court held that, while auctioning the right for running that sadyalayam, the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income to the Board is generated from the said

¶93

-15-

¶94

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶95

building. In case of any default committed by the successful bidder in remitting the balance auction amount, electricity charges or any other statutory dues payable as per the tender conditions, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have to take prompt action against such bidder and the said fact has to be promptly reported to the concerned officer in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶96

In Abu K.S. [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642] the writ petitioner, the successful bidder, remitted only 50% of the auction amount on 18.07.2019. Though he had defaulted payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,20,500/-, he was permitted to continue to occupy the sadyalayam, even beyond the period of auction, i.e., 31.07.2021. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against the successful bidder till the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022, whereby they were directed to take over possession of the sadyalayam forthwith, if found necessary with police assistance. In such circumstances, in the said decision, this Court deprecated in the strongest words the

¶97

-16-

¶98

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶99

conduct of the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer and also the concerned officers in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board in taking no action against the successful bidder, who was a defaulter. In the said decision, this Court found that, the concerned officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. Since, such irregularities in the conduct of auction for running auditoriums/sadyalayams in the temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board cannot be permitted in future, this Court directed Registry to initiate suo motu proceedings in the that matter.

¶100

In Suneesh K.S. [ILR (2022) 1 Ker 1091 : 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 611] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the Kuthaka right for sale of pooja items in Valliamkavu Devi Temple under the Management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the said decision, this Court held that, the properties of deities and temples are required to be protected and safeguarded from usurpation or

¶101

-17-

¶102

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶103

encroachment in any manner. Persons entrusted with the duty to manage such properties should be vigilant to prevent such usurpation or encroachment. When such usurpation or encroachment is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The officers concerned and also the devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from usurpation or encroachment, wrongful claims or misappropriation. Therefore, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer shall take stern action against those who have defaulted payment of instalments in respect of the Kuthaka items, in violation of the tender conditions, if found necessary, after seeking police assistance. If any such request is received, it is the duty of the concerned Station House Officer to render necessary assistance to the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner or the Administrative Officer, in order to protect

¶104

-18-

¶105

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶106

and safeguard the properties of deities and temples from usurpation or encroachment in any manner.

¶107

In Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 1091: 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 611] we noticed that, as per clause (8) of the tender conditions, which forms part of the tender notifications issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, the Board has the right to cancel the bid of successful bidders who failed to remit the entire amount within the time stipulated by the Board and to conduct re-auction. In which event, the original bidder will be responsible for the loss, if any, sustained by the Board. As per clause (10) of the tender conditions, the successful bidder will be liable to pay 18% interest for belated remittance of instalments. In case of default in remitting the said amount, i.e., defaulted instalments together with 18% interest, the Board will have the right to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the bidder for recovering the loss caused to it. As per clause (12) of the tender conditions, in case the bidder has defaulted payment of bid amount in any manner, which has resulted in the Board sustaining loss, the Board shall

¶108

-19-

¶109

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶110

have the right to proceed against the movable and immovable properties of the bidder for recovering the said loss. Proceedings under clause (23) of the tender conditions shall also be initiated against such defaulters, for black-listing.

¶111

As already noticed in the order dated 23.09.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, Adv.Sri.V.K.Sidharthan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed in view of the interim order of this Court dated 01.09.2022 in W.P.(C)No.26568 of 2022. The said writ petition has already been disposed of by a separate judgment of this date. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed, deprecating in the strongest words the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioners in making factually incorrect submissions before this Court.

¶112

Registry is directed to initiate a suo motu proceedings on the default committed by the 1^st petitioner in remitting the balance bid amount of Rs.67,50,000/- in respect of the Kuthaka right for the year 2021-22 for conducting the pooja stall in Kottarakkara P.D.Manikandeswaram Temple and

¶113

-20-

¶114

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶115

the inaction on the part of the 1^st respondent Board and its officials in initiating coercive steps against him for recovering the said amount together with 18% penal interest and also proceeding for blacklisting and number the same as DBP in which the State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram–695 001; Deputy Examiner for Local Fund Audit, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit, Nanthancode P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 033; Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary, Nanthancode, Kowdiar Post, Thiruvananthapuram–695 003; The Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, Kottarakkara Group, Kollam – 691 506; Sub Group Officer, Kottarakkara, Manikanteswaram Sub Group, Kollam District – 691 506; and Anil Kumar R., S/o.Ramachandran, Kochuparackal, Temple Nagar, Kottarkkara P.O., Kollam – 691 506 shall be in the party array as the respondents.

¶116

List that DBP before Devaswom Bench on 27.10.2022. When the above DBP is listed for consideration, the learned

¶117

-21-

¶118

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶119

Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board shall get instruction as to whether the 1^st petitioner herein is the holder of Kuthaka right in any temple under the management of the

¶120

Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶121

Sd/-

¶122

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶123

Sd/-

¶124

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶125

AV/20/10

¶126

-22-

¶127

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶128

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25350/2022

¶129

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

¶130

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BY-LAWS VIDE FINAL
NOTIFICATION DATED 30-10-2011 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND 86
OTHERS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.4.2022.

¶131

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶132

Exhibit-R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING E-
TENDER DATED 14/10/2020 PUBLISHED IN
E-TENDER PORTAL ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit-R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING E-
TENDER DATED 01/01/2021 PUBLISHED IN
E-TENDER PORTAL ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit-R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING E-
TENDER DATED 29/10/2021 PUBLISHED IN
E-TENDER PORTAL ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit-R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING E-
TENDER DATED 16/12/2021 PUBLISHED IN
E-TENDER PORTAL ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit-R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING E-
TENDER DATED 29/01/2022 PUBLISHED IN
E-TENDER PORTAL ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.

¶133

-23-

¶134

W.P.(C). No. 25350 of 2022

¶135

Exhibit-R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING E-
TENDER DATED 02/04/2022 PUBLISHED IN
E-TENDER PORTAL ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit-R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING E-
TENDER DATED 11/05/2022 PUBLISHED IN
E-TENDER PORTAL ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit-R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
13/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, KOTTARAKARA TO
THE SECRETARY.

Anil Kumar R., v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar R., v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.V. Ravikumar Vs State of Kerala

Veena Sukumaran Nair Vs v. Harikrishnan

Jubimol Majo Vs Jose

John Cherian Vs a Suresh Kumar @ Sureshkumar

Subhash G. Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Sivadasan Vs Latha