The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging a demand for additional payment from successful bidders for Kuthaka rights. The Court found that the bidders' conduct (abstaining from earlier auctions, causing price reduction) amounted to cartelisation, disentitling them to promissory estoppel.
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 TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 4TH MAGHA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 14177 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
RAJESH T.B., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. BHADRAN NAIR, THURUNTHAYIL HOUSE, THAZHAM P.O., MALAYALAPPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 666.
BY ADVS. D.AJITHKUMAR HARSHA S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
2
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).14615/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 4TH MAGHA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 14184 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
JAYAPRAKASH P.G.
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, PARAPPATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, THAZHAM P.O., MALAYALAPPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 666.
BY ADVS. D.AJITHKUMAR HARSHA S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 SECRETARY
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
3 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
4
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
4 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MALAYALAPUZHA DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KUMBAZHA - MALAYALAPUZHA ROAD, MALAYALAPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 666.
BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).14615/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 4TH MAGHA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 14185 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
RAJESH.T.B., AGED 45 YEARS S/O. BHADRAN NAIR, THURUNTHAYIL HOUSE, THAZHAM P.O., MALAYALAPPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 666.
BY ADVS. D.AJITHKUMAR HARSHA S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
6
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
4 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MALAYALAPPUZHA DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KUMBAZHA, MALAYALAPUZHA ROAD, MALAYALAPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 666.
BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).14615/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 4TH MAGHA, 1944
W.P.(C) NO. 14615 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
VINISH R. AGED 65 YEARS, S/O RAVEENDRAN, PANAVELI.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN-691532.
BY ADVS. D.AJITHKUMAR HARSHA S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
8
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
4 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KULASEKHARANALLUR SUB GROUP, (SREE MAHAGANAPATHY TEMPLE), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691506.
BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).14177/2022, 14184/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.01.2023
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
9
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
JUDGMENT
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
The facts and reliefs claimed are identical and hence these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.
10
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
Kuthaka item in the previous year, i.e., 2021-2022, unless they pay the difference amount. In terms of the said instruction, letters were sent to petitioners in these Writ Petitions asking them to pay the difference between the bid amount of the current year and that of the previous year. The writ petitioners challenge vires of the communication No.ROC.21902/2021/NS2 dated 04.04.2022 issued by the 1st respondent and the demand issued to the respective writ petitioners for payment of such difference amount. Common reliefs prayed for are,-
11
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
petitioners are tabulated below:
| Sl. No |
W.P.(C) No. | Kuthaka item |
Bid amount in 2021-22 (Rs.) |
Bid amount in 2022-23 (Rs.) |
Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14177 of 2022 | Collecting 'Kozhi' |
67,00,001/- | 44,24,000/- | 26,85,680/- |
| 2 | 14814 of 2022 | Selling pooja items |
75,85,951/- | 48,10,000/- | 29,21,622/- |
| 3 | 14185 of 2022 | Collecting 'Manchadi' |
30,00,000/- | 26,58,500/- | 4,02,,970/- |
| 4 | 14615 of 2022 | Selling pooja items |
75,06,001/- | 69,10,000/- | 5,96,001/- |
enforcement of the demand made by the respondents to make payment of the additional amount was stayed in all the Writ Petitions initially for a limited period. The interim order was extended from time to time.
12
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
raised. Each of the Kuthaka items was tendered twice. The contractors formed a cartel and did not bid in the said auctions with mala fide intention of reducing the auction price. That resulted in huge loss to the Travancore Devaswom Board and the respective Deities. In such circumstances, the respondents were compelled to reduce the upset price twice. It was thereafter the respective writ petitioners participated in the auction, which was held the third time. The 1st respondent on noticing the said malpractices and that in the year 2021-2022, during which period normal human life was seriously affected on account of the spread of COVID-19, the bid amount were more decided not to confirm the auction unless the difference amount is paid by the respective writ petitioners. The Deputy Devaswom Commissioners and Assistant Devaswom Commissioners were instructed accordingly. They in terms of such instructions issued notices to the respective writ petitioners, which is legal and justified. If the writ petitioners are not prepared to make payment of such additional amounts, they are not entitled to be awarded
13
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
the contract, and the Kuthaka items are liable to be awarded in favour of those who are prepared to pay the higher amount. In such circumstances, the Writ Petitions are sought to be dismissed.
14
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
different Temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board are enumerated. Although the e-tender was notified twice, nobody came forward to bid the said right. It was thereafter the Travancore Devaswom Board, on getting convinced that the upset price fixed was high, reduced the upset price for various Kuthaka rights by 25%, 30%, 35% and 40%. Accordingly, the tender was floated again on 30.03.2022. It was in the said auction the writ petitioners participated and offered the highest amounts for the respective Kuthaka items. The terms and conditions for the auction were again as contained in Ext.P1 and in terms of the same, all the petitioners have remitted 50% bid amount along with the GST in time.
15
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
the consequent demands (Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.14177, Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.14184 of 2022, Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.14185 of 2022 and Ext.P4 in W.P(C) No.14615 of 2022) are illegal and unsustainable in law.
16
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
17
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
along with GST. Pointing out that fact the petitioners would contend that the respondents are estopped from deviating from the terms and conditions in Ext.P1. As a matter of fact, none of the petitioners had executed a formal contract although they remitted the first installment and started exercising the Kuthaka right. Immediately i.e., on 04.04.2022, the 1st respondent decided to insist on payment of additional payment.
held,
“Unlike the private parties the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest. It is really the nature of its personality as State which is significant and must characterize all its actions, in whatever field, and not the nature of function, contractual or otherwise, which is decisive of the nature of scrutiny permitted for examining the validity of its act. The requirement of Article 14 being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably, there is nothing which militates against the concept of requiring the State always to so
18
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
act, even in contractual matters. This factor alone is sufficient to import at least the minimal requirements of public law obligations and impress with this character the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality. It is a different matter that the scope of judicial review in respect of disputes tailing within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. However, to the extent challenge is made on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the fact that the dispute also falls within the domain of contractual obligations would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14.”
Therefore, it is the obligation of the State and statutory authorities just like any other contracting party to act fairly and reasonably by sticking to the terms of the contract and even the assurances given during the formation of the contract. The doctrine of promissory estoppel may bar a party from any departure. That is the general principle of law. But, it is not invariable. The rule is subject to exceptions.
19
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
14. In Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India
Limited [(1985) 4 SCC 369] the Apex Court held,
“Now the doctrine of promissory estoppel is wellestablished in the administrative law of India. It represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and, though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. The basis of this doctrine is the interposition of equity which has always, true to its form, stepped in to mitigate the rigour of strict law. This doctrine, though of ancient vintage, was rescued from obscurity by the decision of Mr. Justice Denning as he then was, in his celebrated judgment in Central London property Trust Limited v . High Trees House Limited [(1956) 1 All E.R. 256]. The true principle of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear and unequi v ocal promise or representation which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise or representation is made, and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties.” (underline supplied)
20
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
15. In Central London Property Trust Limited
(supra) the plaintiff let out to the defendant a block of flats for a term of 99 years. The annual ground rent agreed was 2,500 pounds. In the wake of the war, the plaintiff had agreed by sending a letter to the defendant that the ground rent would be reduced to 1,250 pounds. However, by the beginning of the year 1945, the defendant could let out all the flats. Then the plaintiff demanded to pay the originally agreed rent of 2,500 pounds. The defendant on the said facts contended that the plaintiff was estopped from demanding rent at the higher rate. The Court through Lord Dening J. held,-
“(1) that where parties enter into an arrangement which is intended to create legal relations between them and in pursuance of such arrangement one party makes a promise to the other which he knows will be acted on and which is in fact acted on by the promisee, the court will treat the promise as binding on the promisor to the extent that it will not allow him to act inconsistently with it even although the promise may not be supported by consideration in the strict sense and the effect of the arrangement made is to vary the terms of a contract under seal by one of less
21
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
value; and
(2) that the arrangement made between the plaintiffs and the defendants in January, 1940, was one which fell within the above category and, accordingly, that the agreement for the reduction. of the ground rent was binding on the plaintiff company, but that it only remained operative so long as the conditions giving rise to it continued to exist and that on their ceasing to do so in 1945 the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the ground rent claimed at the rate reserved by the lease.”
equitable grounds to vary the terms of the agreement has been the subject of discussion of the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In Kasinka Trading v. Union of India [(1995)
1 SCC 274], the Apex Court held,-
"12. It has been settled by this Court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government also particularly where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The doctrine, however, cannot be pressed into aid to compel the Government or the public authority "to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or
22
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make". There is preponderance of judicial opinion that to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and that bald expressions, without any supporting material, to the effect that the doctrine is attracted because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the assurance of the Government would not be sufficient to press into aid the doctrine. In our opinion, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the public good at large, because while considering the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must for ever be present to the mind of the court, while considering the applicability of the doctrine. The doctrine must yield when the equity so demands if it can be shown having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation." (emphasis supplied)
23
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
17. In Union of India v. Unicorn Industries
[(2019) 10 SCC 575] , the Apex Court held,-
“The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government also, particularly where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The doctrine, however, cannot be pressed into aid to compel the Government or the public authority "to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make". There is preponderance of judicial opinion that to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and that bald expressions, without any supporting material, to the effect that the doctrine is attracted because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the assurance of the Government would not be sufficient to press into aid the doctrine. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the public good at large, because while considering the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must for ever be present to the mind of the court, while
24
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
considering the applicability of the doctrine. The doctrine must yield when the equity so demands if it can be shown having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation.” (emphasis supplied)
Authority v. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society [2022 SCC OnLine SC 655] , the Apex Court held,-
“54. It has been held by this Court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the public good at large. It has been held that while considering the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must for ever be present to the mind of the court, while considering the applicability of the doctrine. It has been held that the doctrine being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires, if it can be shown by the Government or Public Authority that having regard to the facts and circumstances as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the Public Authority to the promise, assurance or representation made by it.” (emphasis supplied)
25
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
W.P.(C) No.14177 of 2022 - Right to sell rooster in Malayolappuzha Devaswom
| Sl. No |
Year | Amount (Rs.) | Bidder |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2020-2021 | 95,59,999/- | Gopakumar, Lakshmi Sadanam, Malayalapuzha. |
| 2 | 2021-2022 | 67,00,000/- | T.B.Rajesh, Thurantayil Puthen veedu, Malayalapuzha. |
| 3 | 2022-2023 | 44,24,000/- | T.B.Rajesh, Thurantayil Puthen veedu, Malayalapuzha. |
26
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
W.P.(C) No.14184 of 2022 - Right to sell Pooja items in Malayolappuzha Devaswom
| Sl. No |
Year | Amount (Rs.) | Bidder |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2020-2021 | 85,75,751/- | T.S.Sundaresan, Thundiyil Veedu, Malayalapuzha. |
| 2 | 2021-2022 | 72,85,951/- | Vinod K.P., Parayil Puthen Veedu, Kumbazha. |
| 3 | 2022-2023 | 48,10,000/- | Vinod K.P., Parayil Puthen Veedu, Kumbazha. |
W.P.(C) No.14185 of 2022 - Right to collect Manchadi in Malayolappuzha Devaswom
| Sl. No |
Year | Amount (Rs.) | Bidder |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2020-2021 | 55,50,999/- | Gopakumar, Lakshmi Sadanam, Malayalapuzha. |
| 2 | 2021-2022 | 30,00,000/- | Rakesh, Malayalapuzha. |
| 3 | 2022-2023 | 26,58,000/- | T.B.Rajesh, Thurantayil Puthen veedu, Malayalapuzha. |
W.P.(C) No.14165 of 2022 - Right to sell sell Pooja items in Sree Mahaganapathy Temple
| Sl. | Year | Amount (Rs.) | Bidder |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| 1 | 2020-2021 | 1,35,00,108/- | Anil Kumar, Kochuparakkal, Kizhakkekara, Kottarakkara. |
27
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
| 2 | 2021-2022 | 75,06,001/- | Vinish, Paravila Veedu, Vilangara P.O., Kottarakkara. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 2022-2023 | 69,10,000/- | Vinish, Paravila Veedu, Vilangara P.O., Kottarakkara. |
was held twice. Since the petitioners were the contractors in the previous years for the same Kuthaka items, it cannot be said that they were not in a position to participate in the auction at the first instance itself. They eluded from the auction twice. Only after the upset price was considerably reduced they came forward to participate in the auction. In the circumstances, what can be understood is that all of them have purposefully avoided participating in the auction. When a few persons by agreement or understanding, among themselves, in their attempt to control the pricing, limit, control or attempt to control the sale, price, etc. of goods or services, that amounts to cartelisation. In that view of the matter if the persons interested in bidding, on the basis of their mutual understanding, fail to participate in the auction
28
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
and thereby compelling the employer to award the contract at an unconscionably lower price, a cartel formation can certainly be inferred. It is true that in this case there is no visible materials to establish a cartel formation. It may be noted the petitioners themselves bid the same Kuthaka rights in the previous year for higher amounts, and after their abstinence from participating in the successive auctions, thereby compelling the Travancore Devaswom Board to reduce the upset price considerably, bid the tender by quoting very low amounts. It certainly establishes a dubitable act on the part of the petitioners. Those circumstances are enough to find that the petitioners formed themselves a cartel. They thereby illegally and unjustly had interfered with the tender process.
29
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
plea of the petitioners that the respondents are estopped from demanding any additional amount over and above the bid amount they have quoted is untenable.
year and there was such an apprehension that a similar situation would prevail this year also. But such an apprehension was turned out to be misplaced. This year, 2022-2023 there have not been any restrictions for human activities on account of COVID-19. The principle in Central London Property Trust Limited (supra) as approved by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decisions is therefore applicable to this case.
30
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
amount. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled to get the reliefs claimed. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. The respondents are permitted to take necessary action for enforcement of the demand for payment of the additional amount in the respective demand notices at the earliest. If such payments are defaulted, the respondents shall take effective steps for ensuring the payment, including immediate cancellation of the contracts and re-tender of the Kuthaka items.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
31
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
APPENDIX OF W.P.(C) 14177/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER NOTIFICATION FOR THE SAME PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE HTTP/ ETENDERS KERALA GOV.IN.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TDB CHALLAN DATED 31.03.2022 IN THE DHANLAXMI BANK LTD, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH FOR RS. 22.58.320/- OF THE AUCTION AMOUNT INCLUDING GST.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TDB CHALLAN DATED 31.03.2022 IN THE DHANLAXMI BANK LTD, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH FOR EMD AMOUNT OF RS. 7.50,000/- ON 30.03.2022.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.03.2022 FOR THE EXHIBIT P2 AMOUNT ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.03.2022 FOR THE EXHIBIT P3 AMOUNT ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.04.2022 RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.04.2022 SENT BY PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P6 NOTICE.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.04.2022 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT TO THE BOARD SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER THROUGH THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
32
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC NO. 21902/21/NS-2 DATED 17.03.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC 21902/21/NS-2 DATED 25.03.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC NO. 21902/21/NS/2 DATED 04.04.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
33
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14184/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER NOTIFICATION FOR THE SAME PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE HTTO./ETENDERS, KERALA.GOV.IN.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TDB CHALLAN DATED 31/03/2022 IN THE DHANLAXMI BANK LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH FOR REMITTING 1ST INSTALMENT OF RS.24,05,000/- OF THE AUCTION AMOUNT AND GST AMOUNT OF RS.8,65,800/- AND THUS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.32,70,800/-.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31/03/2022 FOR THE EXHIBIT P2 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/04/2022 RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11/04/2022 SENT BY PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P4 NOTICE.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/04/2022 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE BOARD THROUGH THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC NO.21902/21/NS-2 DATED 17/03/2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC 21902/21/NS-2 DATED 25/03/2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
34
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
EXHIBIT P9
TRUE COPY OF THE ROC NO.21902/21/NS/2 DATED 04/04/2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
35
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14185/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER NOTIFICATION FOR THE SAME PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE HTTP/ ETENDERS, KERALA GOV.IN. EXHIBIT P2 THE KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD, 686 001. TDB CHALLAN DATED 31.3.2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR RS. 13,57,780/-. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TDB CHALLAN DATED 31.3.2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR RS. 4,50,000/EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.03.2022 FOR EXHIBIT P2 AMOUNT ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.03.2022 FOR EXHIBIT P3 AMOUNT ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.04.2022 RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.04.2022 SENT BY PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P6 NOTICE. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.04.2022 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT TO THE BOARD SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER THROUGH THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC NO. 21902/21/NS-2 DATED 17.03.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
36
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC 21902/21/NS-2 DATED 25.03.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC NO.21902/21/NS/2 DATED 04.04.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
37
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14615/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE HTTP:/TENDERS . KERALA.GOVT.IN.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF 1ST INSTALMENT OF RS.34, 55,000/-WHICH IS THE 50% OF THE AUCTION AMOUNT DATED 30.03.2022.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF GST AMOUNT OF RS.12,43,800/- DATED 30.03.2022.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED NOTICE RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 21.04.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.04.2022 SENT BY PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT-P4 NOTICE
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.04.2022 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE BOARD THROUGH THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC NO.21902/21/NS-2 DATED 17.03.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC 21902/21/NS-2 DATED 25.03.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC NO.21902/21/NS/2 DATED 04.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
38
W.P.(C) Nos.14177, 14184, 14185 and 14615 of 2022
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2022 IN W.P(C)NO.14177 OF 2022.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Travancore Devaswom Board could demand additional payment from successful bidders for Kuthaka rights, over and above their accepted bid amounts, on grounds of suspected cartelisation?
Whether the petitioners could invoke promissory estoppel to prevent the Board from varying the tender terms after acceptance of their bids and part performance?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.Referred¶11
ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India LimitedReferred¶14
Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Limited [(1985) 4 SCC 369] · Who else cites this
Central London Property Trust Limited v. High Trees House LimitedReferred¶15
Central London Property Trust Limited v. High Trees House Limited [(1956) 1 All E.R. 256]
Kasinka Trading v. Union of IndiaReferred¶16
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India [(1995) 1 SCC 274] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Unicorn IndustriesReferred¶17
Union of India v. Unicorn Industries [(2019) 10 SCC 575] · Who else cites this
Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v. Shakuntla Education and Welfare SocietyReferred¶18
Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society [2022 SCC OnLine SC 655] · Who else cites this
Rajesh T.B.
Jayaprakash P.G.
Vinish R.
Travancore Devaswom Board
Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board
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
