Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sheena M.S., was the holder of a licence in Form LE-1 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur under the Explosives Rules, 2008. She participated in the re-e-tender process initiated for the kuthaka item “Vedi Vazhipadu” at Sabarimala Devaswom, being Item No. 6 in the relevant re-e-tender notification, for the Mandala-Makaravilakku Maholsavam, Maasapooja and Medavishu during the year 1198 ME.

According to the petitioner, in the re-e-tender conducted on 12 October 2022, she quoted the highest bid of Rs. 5,28,528, and the total amount payable including GST was Rs. 6,23,663. Her grievance was that instead of accepting her highest bid, the Devaswom Commissioner issued a fresh re-e-tender notification dated 18 October 2022 covering various kuthaka items in Sabarimala, Pamba and Nilakkal, including “Vedi Vazhipadu”.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to restrain the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials from proceeding with the fresh re-tender, to grant her the right to conduct “Vedi Vazhipadu” as the highest bidder after accepting the bid amount, and to direct the Additional District Magistrate to issue a licence in Form LE-2 based on her application dated 17 October 2022.

During the hearing, the Travancore Devaswom Board placed before the Court the historical auction figures. The highest bid for “Vedi Vazhipadu” was stated to be Rs. 16,00,000 for 2016-17, Rs. 16,25,000 for 2017-18, no auction having been conducted in 2018-19 due to absence of licensed bidders, Rs. 4,20,000 for 2019-20, no auction in 2020-21 due to Covid-19 restrictions, and Rs. 3,90,000 for 2021-22 during the Covid-restricted period.

The Court also noted that earlier restrictions on the number of Sabarimala pilgrims had substantially changed and that, at the relevant time, pilgrims were permitted darshan without the earlier Covid-era numerical restrictions through the Virtual-Q platform. Against that background, the Court examined whether the Devaswom Commissioner could lawfully seek a fresh re-tender when the petitioner’s highest bid was only Rs. 5,28,528 compared with substantially higher pre-pandemic auction amounts.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner, merely because she submitted the highest bid of Rs. 5,28,528, acquired an enforceable legal right to compel acceptance of her bid for the “Vedi Vazhipadu” kuthaka item.
  2. Whether issuance of the fresh re-e-tender notification dated 18 October 2022 was arbitrary, illegal or unsustainable.
  3. Whether the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Devaswom Commissioner were legally entitled, or indeed obligated, to re-tender the kuthaka right in order to secure proper income for Sabarimala Devaswom.
  4. Whether the statutory duties imposed by Sections 15A and 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 require the Board to act in the best financial and institutional interests of the Devaswom.
  5. Whether the Board’s position in managing Devaswom properties and affairs is analogous to that of a trustee acting under fiduciary obligations.
  6. Whether historical auction amounts and the lifting of Covid-era pilgrim restrictions constituted relevant considerations while deciding whether to accept the petitioner’s bid or proceed with re-tendering.
  7. Whether possible cartel formation among bidders could justify appropriate action by the Board to ensure that proper income is generated from the auction of kuthaka rights.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that she had emerged as the highest bidder in the re-e-tender process by offering Rs. 5,28,528 and that, including GST, she was required to pay Rs. 6,23,663.

It was argued that her bid was higher than the auction amounts of Rs. 4,20,000 for 2019-20 and Rs. 3,90,000 for 2021-22. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there was no valid justification for refusing to accept her bid.

The petitioner maintained that the decision to issue another re-e-tender notification dated 18 October 2022 was arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.

She accordingly sought a direction compelling the respondents to grant her the right to conduct “Vedi Vazhipadu” at Sabarimala Devaswom after accepting her bid amount.

The petitioner also sought a direction to the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur, to issue a licence in Form LE-2 under the Explosives Rules, 2008, based on her pending application.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Travancore Devaswom Board relied upon the historical auction amounts for the same kuthaka item and submitted that the relevant pre-pandemic bids were substantially higher than the petitioner’s offer.

The Board pointed out that the highest bid was approximately Rs. 16 lakh in 2016-17 and Rs. 16.25 lakh in 2017-18, whereas the petitioner’s offer for 2022-23 was only Rs. 5,28,528.

The respondents’ position was supported by the changed factual circumstances following the easing or removal of Covid-era pilgrim restrictions. The reduced auction amounts during pandemic-affected years could not necessarily serve as the sole benchmark for a normal pilgrimage season.

The Board’s case, in substance, was that its officials were required to protect Devaswom revenue and ensure that auctioning valuable kuthaka rights generated proper income, particularly because Sabarimala Devaswom income has wider financial significance for temples under the Board’s administration.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the fresh re-e-tender notification concerning “Vedi Vazhipadu”.

The Court found that the Devaswom Commissioner could not be faulted for issuing the re-e-tender notification, particularly because the petitioner’s highest bid of Rs. 5,28,528 was substantially below the auction amounts achieved in the pre-pandemic years.

The Court emphasized that while auctioning kuthaka rights in Sabarimala Devaswom, the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials must ensure that proper income is generated.

The Board and its officials are required to demonstrate reasonable diligence in the manner in which an ordinary prudent person of business would conduct his own affairs.

The Court held that the best interests of the Devaswoms under the Board’s control are served only when proper income is generated from the auction of kuthaka rights.

Accordingly, the Court found no reason to interfere with Ext.P7 re-e-tender notification and directed the Devaswom Commissioner to proceed further with it.

The Court further held that Sections 15A and 31 cast a statutory duty upon the Travancore Devaswom Board to ensure performance of regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent at Sabarimala and to arrange for daily worship, ceremonies and festivals according to usage.

Consequently, the Board was required to make necessary arrangements for conducting “Vedi Vazhipadu” in discharge of its statutory duties.

The Court specifically clarified that if there was cartel formation among bidders, it was for the Board and its officials to deal with the matter appropriately so that proper income was generated through auction of the kuthaka right.

The writ petition was dismissed leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner. The additional fourth respondent was directed to proceed with the re-e-tender strictly in terms of the eligibility criteria in the original e-tender notification, the general tender conditions, and the law laid down in the precedents discussed in the judgment.

Important Clarification

The judgment establishes that being the highest bidder does not, by itself, create an absolute or indefeasible right to compel acceptance of the bid, particularly where the authority managing religious endowment property is under a statutory and fiduciary obligation to protect institutional revenue and secure proper income.

The crucial consideration is not merely whether a bid is higher than bids obtained during exceptional Covid-affected years. The competent authority may legitimately consider historical auction values, prevailing conditions, restoration of pilgrim movement and the overall financial interests of the Devaswom.

The Court treated the Travancore Devaswom Board’s role as having a trustee-like or fiduciary character. Therefore, the Board cannot act merely as an ordinary contracting party unconcerned with the adequacy of revenue. Its officials must exercise reasonable diligence comparable to that of an ordinary prudent person managing his own affairs.

The judgment further clarifies that the Board’s duty has two interconnected dimensions: it must ensure the continuation of traditional religious practices such as “Vedi Vazhipadu”, while simultaneously protecting the financial interests of the Devaswom through a fair and revenue-conscious auction process.

The Court also expressly recognised the possibility of cartel formation among bidders and clarified that the Board and its officials may appropriately address such conduct to ensure generation of proper income.

A further important point is that the writ petition was dismissed while leaving open the petitioner’s legal and factual contentions, and the re-tender process was required to proceed strictly according to the prescribed eligibility criteria and general tender conditions.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Section 1(3), Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 — Territorial application of different Parts of the Act.

Section 2(a), Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 — Definition of “Board”.

Section 2(c), Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 — Definition concerning incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms.

Section 15A, Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 — Duties of the Board, including ensuring regular traditional rites and ceremonies, monitoring administrative and ritual-related functionaries, proper maintenance and upliftment of Hindu religious institutions, and facilities for devotees.

Section 16, Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 — Supervision and control by the Board over officers and servants of the Board and Devaswom Department.

Section 31, Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 — Management of Devaswom properties and affairs and arrangements for daily worship, ceremonies and festivals according to usage.

Explosives Rules, 2008 — Form LE-1 licence held by the petitioner and the petitioner’s application for Form LE-2 licence.

Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 — Discussed through Supreme Court precedent concerning fiduciary duties, control of discretionary powers and restrictions governing trustees.

Link to download the order -https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783408946_1355compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.