Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 24765 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:
V.MURUGAN, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PROPRIETOR, SREE MURUGAN AGENCIES, TC 20/937, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
BY ADVS.
D.KISHORE R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE DEVASOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.
3 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SABARIMALA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 662.
4 THE DEVASWOM FINANCE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (VIGILANCE & SECURITY), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS,
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 2 NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003 6 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.
BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.02.2023, THE COURT ON 13.04.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 3 JUDGMENT Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who was the successful bidder for the supply of stationery items in Sabarimala Devaswom, for the year 1192 ME (1st Vrischikam, 1192 till 30th Thulam, 1193), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to pass appropriate orders directing the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner to draw and disburse the amount covered by Ext.P3 invoice dated 28.06.2017 to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a time frame. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Board to sanction interest for delayed payment of the amount covered by Ext.P3 invoice dated 28.06.2017, right from 01.02.2017, the date on which the said amount is payable, till the date of payment, as expeditiously as possible; and also a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 remarks dated 12.08.2020 of the 4th respondent Finance Commissioner of the 1st respondent Board and Ext.P10 order dated 04.09.2020 of the 1st respondent Board, as illegal and arbitrary, since the said order is one issued without taking into account of Ext.P2 communication dated 20.01.2017,
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 4 Ext.P5 minutes dated 05.09.2019, Ext.P6 order dated 06.09.2019 and Ext.P7 communication dated 22.10.2019.
2.
Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 3rd respondent Executive Officer, Sabarimala Devaswom, issued Ext.P1 notification dated 25.10.2016, inviting sealed tenders for the supply of various items in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1192 ME (1st Vrischikam, 1192 till 30th Thulam, 1193). The terms and conditions of the tender form part of Ext.P1 notification. The sealed tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted for the supply of stationery items in Sabarimala Devaswom. As per Clause 7 of the tender conditions, the rate quoted in the tender shall be applicable for the entire period, i.e., from 1st Vrischikam, 1192 till 30th Thulam, 1193. As provided under Clause 8, the petitioner is liable to supply additional quantity of stationery items, if required by the 3rd respondent Executive Officer, at the rate quoted in the tender, in case there is requirement for additional quantity, during the period from 1st Vrischikam, 1192 till 30th Thulam, 1193. As directed by the 3rd respondent Executive Officer, the petitioner supplied the required quantity of stationery items, as per the tender notification, and received the price of the items supplied. Going by the averments in the writ petition, based on the requests of the 3rd
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 5 respondent, the petitioner supplied additional quantity of stationery items, under Clause 8 of the tender conditions.
2.1. The 3rd respondent, vide Ext.P2 communication dated 20.01.2017, requested the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner to accord sanction for the purchase of additional quantity of stationery items from the petitioner, during the festival season of 1192 ME. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of tax invoice dated 28.06.2017, for a sum of Rs.14,78,955/-, for the supply of additional quantity of stationery items in Sabarimala Devaswom for the period 1192-1193 ME. According to the petitioner, despite repeated requests respondents 1 to 4 have not taken any steps to disburse the amount covered by Ext.P3 invoice.
The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 10.04.2018 before the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner. The document marked as Ext.P5 is a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the 1st respondent Board held on 05.09.2019, whereby the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner was authorised to disburse the cost of additional items supplied by various suppliers in Sabarimala Devaswom, after verification of stock register by the 3rd respondent Executive Officer. Such a decision was taken in Ext.P5, based on the Report dated 29.08.2019 of the Devaswom Commissioner. Ext.P5
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 6 decision taken by the Board in its meeting held on 05.09.2019 was intimated to the Devaswom Commissioner, vide Ext.P6 communication dated 06.09.2019, whereby the Devaswom Commissioner is authorised to sanction and disburse the amount towards the cost of the additional items supplied by the suppliers, subject to the verification of stock register by the Executive Officer.
The Executive Officer, vide Ext.P7 communication dated 22.10.2019, requested the Devaswom Commissioner to issue necessary orders for disbursing the additional items supplied by the petitioner, as per the statement which forms part of the said communication. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.14,78,955/- is due to him as on 01.02.2017 for the additional stationery items supplied. On account of the delay, the petitioner is entitled for interest for the said amount at the rate of 15% per annum. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 03.12.2020 before the President of the Travancore Devaswom Board for disbursement of a total sum of Rs.23,10,867/- as on the date of that representation. As stated in Ext.P8, the matter relating to payment to the petitioner for the additional stationery items supplied was referred to the 4th respondent Finance Commissioner, who has referred the matter to the 5th
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 7 respondent, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Security). The document marked as Ext.P9 is a reply received by the petitioner dated 01.04.2021, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, enclosing therewith Ext.P9(2) remarks dated 12.08.2020 of the Finance Commissioner, in which certain irregularities were noticed. It is based on Ext.P9(2) remarks of the Finance Officer that the Board has ordered vigilance enquiry in the additional supply of stationery items by the petitioner in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1192 ME (1st Vrischikam, 1192 till 30th Thulam, 1193) vide Ext.P10 order dated 04.09.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the lapse of several years, he was denied of the payment for the additional quantity of stationery items supplied vide Ext.P3 tax invoice dated 28.06.2017.
3.
On 10.11.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 5 and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 6th respondent Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit were directed to get instructions.
4.
The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a statement on behalf of respondents 1 to 5.
Paragraphs 5 to 7 of that statement read thus;
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 8 “5. It is submitted that the petitioner was one of the suppliers of various articles including stationery items for the Sabarimala Festival for the year 1192 ME. Four agencies participated in the tender and the tender was awarded to those who quoted the lowest amount for each item. But that year, it was reported that more items than ordered were needed and that the Executive Officer had ordered to supply those extra items. The petitioner alleges that he delivered these goods and he has not paid for the extra items till date.
6. It is submitted that clause 8 of the tender conditions provide a condition to supply additional items on request. However, there is no record to show that such additional supply order had been issued by the Executive Officer to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has reported that the petitioner has supplied some additional items. It is also seen from the records that on the basis of the said report, the 2nd respondent recommended payment to the petitioner. However, the report did not make a clear recommendation regarding the amount. Therefore, the Board directed to furnish a clear report. Based on that, the Devaswom Commissioner submitted a report to the Board on 20.01.2020. Thereupon the Board forwarded the bill to the Finance Commissioner for verification.
The Finance Commissioner expressed serious doubts as to whether all the items mentioned in the bill had been supplied. The Finance Commissioner, as per Exhibit-P9 has suggested that the matter be entrusted to Devaswom Vigilance for a detailed investigation.
7. It is submitted that accordingly the Board has directed the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security, Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct an enquiry in the matter. The
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 9 Vigilance Department has submitted preliminary findings that the invoice received from the supplier I should be verified by the GST Department to ascertain whether the items mentioned in the stock register have been supplied. A copy of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security, Travancore Devaswom Board dated 02.09.2021 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R1(a). Based on the said recommendation, the Board authorised the Devaswom Commissioner to take steps for verifying the invoice through the GST Department. The process is not yet complete. Only after completion of the above process, it can be ascertained whether the extra items were actually supplied or not.” (underline supplied)
5.
The 6th respondent Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department has filed a counter affidavit dated 28.05.2022.
Paragraphs 3 to 11 of that counter affidavit read thus;
“3. Audit preliminary verified the correspondence files of Devaswom Commissioner office and Board office in this regard on February 2022. Later Audit conducted local verifications in Devaswom Commissioner Office, Thiruvananthapuram and Sabarimala Executive Office, Pathanamthitta from 04.04.2022 to 05.04.2022 and from 07.04.2022 to 08.04.2022 respectively. The findings of the audit in this matter are presented as follows:
Obscureness in the quantity of stationery supply:- checking of original tax invoice is inevitable.
4. Several discrepancies were found on verification of the 'stock issue register' for the period 1192 ME and files related to this in Sabarimala Executive Office. The authenticity of the
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 10 stock issue register is doubtful because of the reasons mentioned below.
A) Eventhough it is recorded in the 'inward part' of the stock register that the items have been delivered, no records of 'purchase order' issued from the Sabarimala Executive office to Muruga Agency are produced for verification.
B) The stock register of 1192 ME is maintained separately, but it is not the continuation of the issue and closing balance of 1991 ME. So the accuracy of the opening balance shown in the 1192 ME stock register cannot be verified. During the local verification, the audit directed the Executive Officer, Sabarimala to produce the stock register of 1191 ME vide Audit Enquiry 1(3) dated 07.04.2022 but the same has not been produced. Besides this there shows a difference in the opening balance of the following items in the 1192 ME stock register with a report regarding the closing balance of stock for the period 1191 ME given by Sabarimala Executive Officer on 20.01.2017 to Devaswom Commissioner vide letter No. EOP- 851/16/Saba.
SI.No.
Item Closing balance of 1191 ME as per the report Opening balance as per 1192 ME stock register 1.
Mask 500 Nos.
Nil 2.
Hair Net 200 Nos.
Nil 5. On verifying the files related to this it is found that the right for supplying some of the stationery items supplied by the petitioner was originally awarded to some other persons (the petitioner admits this in the affidavit). This was enquired vide Audit Enquiry No. 1 dated 07.04.2022. But no documents or convincing explanation is produced before the audit in order to
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 11 substantiate the reason for avoiding the original tender and instead giving the right for the same to Muruga agencies. It is found that no purchase order' has been issued in this regard also. This points towards the seriousness and importance for having a proper ' purchase order'. Details of items supplied by Muruga Agencies without tender sanction is given below.
SI.No.
Item Person who originally got tender right for supplying the item Quantity supplied by Muruga Agency and the rate Amount 1.
Fax Machine Toner Sri.Mani S.
20 Nos.
@3400/- 68,000 2.
Mask Sri.Shaji P.N.
27,000 @3.95/- 10,66,50
Total 1,74,650 6. As the rate at which the original tender is awarded is not known as the files relating to it were not produced for verification despite enquiry given in this respect and also that the circumstances under which the said items were allowed to be supplied by M/s Muruga Agencies also not disclosed, the audit could not conclusively prove whether there occurred any wrongdoings in this matter. The total amount of Rs. 1,74,650/- as per Sl. Nos. 1 & 2 is included in the claim preferred by M/s Muruga Agencies vide Ext.P3.
Sluggishness in the verification of Tax Invoice bills 7. Board had taken a decision for verifying the original tax invoice submitted by Muruga Agencies through State Commercial Tax Department on 07.09.2021 and Devaswom Commissioner was entrusted to carry out the procedures.
Accordingly, Devaswom Commissioner asked the Sabarimala Executive Officer to produce the original bills on 01.02.2022 (vide letter no.15696/16/saba). However, the Sabarimala
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 12 Executive Officer has not handed over the original bills till date (as on local verification date. 08.04.2022). The original bills have not been handed over to the State Commercial Tax Department, even six months after the decision in this regard was taken.
Amount Claimed and Received by Muruga Agency :- Detailed Verification Needed.
8. The allegation raised by Muruga Agency is that they were not sanctioned the amount for the items they had supplied in excess' of the tender permitted. The amount demanded by the petitioner for the excess supply is Rs.14,78,955/- (It is submitted to Honourable High Court as Exhibit P-3 vide Bill No.37 dated 28.06.2017). But on verifying the files related to this in Sabarimala Executive Office, copies of two more bills in addition to the above mentioned bill have been found. Details of the same are given below.
Bill/Invoice No.25 dated 25.05.2017 Rs.12,60,545 Bill/Invoice No.26 dated 25.05.2017 Rs.9,44,948 9. When considering the 'three bills' together (one submitted by Muruga Agency and two bills found at the time of local verification) audit found that the claim for certain items are seen in excess over the total items supplied as per stock register. Details of the same are furnished as Annexure - 1.
But it is not clear whether the payment has been made for Bill Nos. 25 and 26 (bills found in local verification) as the cash book, bank scroll etc are not produced. The audit requested to produce cheque issue register, cash book, vouchers and bank statement for the year 1192 ME during local verification (vide audit enquiry 1 (1) dated 07.04.2022}, but the same has not been made available.
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 13 10. If the payment is done as per Bills 25 & 26 which are found on local verification, then the claim as per Ext. P3 will clearly be a case of excess claim. The details of the whole items supplied as per the stock register, claim put forward by the 3 bills (Bill Nos. 25, 26 & 37), the quantity and the monetary value of excess claim etc are given as Annexure I. A true copy of the Annexure I is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(a). A total number of 20 items were additionally supplied and the claim for the same was Rs.14,78,955/- vide Ext. P3 which is the basis of this Writ Petition. But audit found that the claim for 9 items (vide Annexure I) of the 20 Nos. of items supplied vide Ext. P3 are more than those really supplied as per the Stock Register. The total value for the claim for the items more than those supplied comes to Rs. 9,32,380/- as given in Annexure - I.
11. It is most humbly submitted that the following procedures are to be completed without undue delay for a foolproof verification in this regard.
1. The verification of original tax invoice of Muruga Agency by State Commercial Tax Department in order to verify the actual quantity of materials supplied.
2. The whole details of payment to Muruga Agency in order to verify whether the agency has claimed more amount than what they are eligible to claim.
3. Considering the above facts the Honourable High Court may humbly be prayed to issue appropriate orders in this regard.”
6.
On 20.06.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 14 Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions as to whether Sri.R.Ravisankar, the Executive Officer, Sabarimala, who issued Ext.P2 letter dated 20.01.2017 to the Devaswom Commissioner, had already retired from service and as to the present status of the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Wing. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, as pointed out in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, serious irregularities and discrepancies are there in the supply of stationery items by the petitioner. The right to supply Fax Machine Toner and Mask were originally with Sri.Mani S.
and Shaji P.N. However, Sree Muruga Agency supplied 20 Fax Machine Toners and 27,000 Mask for a sum of Rs,1,74,650/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent.
7.
On 18.10.2022, on a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P3 invoice dated 28.06.2017 is in respect of additional quantity of stationery items supplied on various dates, for a total sum of Rs.14,78,955/- This Court noticed that, Ext.P2 communication dated 20.01.2017 of the Executive Officer is one addressed to the Devaswom Commissioner, seeking ratification of use of additional quantity of
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 15 stationery items for the year 1192 ME. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner supplied additional quantity of stationery items in Ext.P3 tax invoice, much prior to 20.01.2017.
By the order dated 18.10.2022, this Court directed the petitioner to place on record the order issued by the Board accepting his tender for supply of stationery items in Sabarimala Devaswom, for the year 1192 ME. The learned Standing Counsel was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court, the relevant records, including the stock register for the year 1191 ME and 1192 ME.
8.
On 03.11.2022, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2022, invoking the provisions under Rule 154 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 to accept Exts.P11 to P13 as additional documents, which was allowed by the order dated 24.11.2022. The document marked as Ext.P11 is the order dated 27.07.2017 of the Board accepting the tender of the petitioner and two others for supply of various items. The document marked as Ext.P12 is a true copy of the stock register in Sabarimala Devaswom for the period 1192 ME, obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The document marked as Ext.P13 is a statement in tabular form prepared by the petitioner furnishing the details of the stationery items alleged to have been supplied by the petitioner
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 16 additionally.
9.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 5 and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 6th respondent.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, when the supply of additional items by the petitioner for the year 1192 ME is not in dispute in view of the admission made in Ext.P2 letter dated 20.01.2017 of the then Executive Officer, addressed to the Devaswom Commissioner, the petitioner is legally entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate reliefs for disbursement of the amount for the additional stationery items covered by Ext.P3 tax invoice dated 28.06.2017. The pendency of a Vigilance enquiry in respect of the said transactions is not a valid ground to deny the payment of the amount due to the petitioner towards the additional stationery items covered by Ext.P3 tax invoice.
11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would contend that there are serious irregularities in the alleged supply of additional stationery items by the petitioner,
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 17 for the year 1192 ME. Based on Ext.P9 remarks dated 12.08.2020 of the 4th respondent Devaswom Finance Commissioner, the Board has ordered Vigilance enquiry vide Ext.P10 order dated 04.09.2020 of the 5th respondent Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Security), which is pending enquiry with the Vigilance wing. When the issue raised in this writ petition involves adjudication of disputed question of facts, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Government Pleader, after referring to the affidavit filed by the 6th respondent Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, would point out that there are serious irregularities and discrepancies in the supply of additional stationery items by the petitioner, which this Court has taken note of in the order dated 20.06.2022. As stated in the affidavit filed by the 6th respondent Deputy Director, on verification of files it was found that the right for supplying some of the stationery items supplied by the petitioner was originally awarded to some other contractor. No documents or convincing explanations were produced before the audit, in order to substantiate the reason for avoiding the original tender and giving the right to the petitioner, i.e., Muruga Agencies. It was found that no purchase order has been
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 18 issued in this regard. As stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, if payment is done as per Bill Nos.25 and 26, which were found on local verification, then the claim as per Ext.P3 tax invoice will be a case of an excess claim. The details of the whole items supplied as per the stock register, the claim put forward with respect of Bill Nos.25,26 and 37, the quantity and monetary value of the excess claim, etc., are furnished in Ext.R6(a), which form part of local verification (audit enquiry dated 07.04.2022).
12. In State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216] the Apex Court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the proper procedure for adjudicating disputes relating to the enforcement of contractual obligations. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of an alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ, but ordinarily, that would be a good ground for refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226. It is true that many
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 19 matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of an alleged breach of contract.
Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify a breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs.
13. In National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises [(2003) 7 SCC 410] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the respondent had filed a writ petition before the High Court for refund of the amount. The High Court posed two questions, namely, (a) whether the forfeiture of the security deposit is without the authority of law and without any binding contract between the parties and also contrary to Section 5 of the Contract Act; and (b) whether the writ petition is maintainable in a claim arising out of breach of contract. While dealing with the said issue
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 20 the Apex Court opined that it is settled law that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been so held in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E.
Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293], State of U.P. v. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. [(1996) 6 SCC 22] and Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 116]. This is settled law. The dispute in the case before the Apex Court was regarding the terms of an offer. They were thus contractual disputes in respect of which a writ court was not the proper forum. The Senior Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decisions in Verigamto Naveen v. State of A.P.
[(2001) 8 SCC 344] and Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India [(1986) 3 SCC 247]. The Apex Court noticed that those are cases where the writ court was enforcing a statutory right or duty.
These cases do not lay down that a writ court can interfere in a matter of contract only. Thus, on the ground of maintainability, the writ petition should have been dismissed.
14. In Gunwant Kaur v.
Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC 769] the Apex Court opined that the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India merely because in
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 21 considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. It is true that exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.
15. In ABL International Ltd. v.
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553] the Apex Court, after referring to various judgments as well as the pronouncement in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC 769] and Century Spinning and
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 22 Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC 582], held that, merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the Court entertaining such a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC 769] the Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact.
16. In ABL International Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553] the Apex Court laid down the following legal principles;
(a) in an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable.
(b) merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule.
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 23 (c) a writ petition involving a consequential relief of mon- etary claim is also maintainable.
While laying down the principle, the Apex Court sounded a word of caution as under in paragraph 28;
“28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has the discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power.
See:
Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1]. And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.” 17. In State of Kerala v. M.K. Jose [(2015) 9 SCC 433] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the respondent had earlier challenged the order of termination of the contract before the High Court by filing in W.P.(C)No.22541 of 2013. That writ petition ended in dismissal. He filed W.A.No.1912 of 2013. The
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 24 Division Bench, by the judgment dated 24.02.2014, allowed that writ appeal. The Division Bench, on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commission, came to the conclusion that the order of termination was founded on erroneous facts, inasmuch as the competent authority had opined that more than 50% of the work remained to be done. The Division Bench opined that, as there was a factual defect, which was evident from the report of the Advocate Commission, the order of termination of the contract is liable to be quashed. After quashing the said order, the Division Bench directed the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads and Bridges) to consider and dispose of the matter afresh after affording the contractor an opportunity of being heard. It also directed that the Commission's report and the Engineer's report and the accounts shall be produced by the Contractor before the competent authority, who shall take the same into account before taking a final decision in the matter. The State and the official respondents took up the matter before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, after referring to the law laid down in Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216] and Ganga Enterprises [(2003) 7 SCC 410], reiterated that a writ court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is a
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 25 breach of contract involving disputed questions of fact. The High Court appointed a Commission to collect the evidence, accepted the same without calling for objections from the respondent, and quashed the order of termination of the contract. The Apex Court observed that the procedure adopted by the High Court is quite unknown to the exercise of powers under Article 226 in a contractual matter.
18. In M.K. Jose [(2015) 9 SCC 433] the Apex Court noticed that in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553] a Two-Judge Bench after referring to various judgments as well as the pronouncement in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC 769] and Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd.
v.
Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC 582] granted the relief as the facts were absolutely clear from the documentary evidence brought which pertain to interpretation of certain clauses of contract of insurance.
The issue that had arisen in ABL International was that an instrumentality of a State was placing a different construction on the clauses of the contract of insurance and the insured was interpreting the contract differently. The Court thought it apt,
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 26 merely because something is disputed by the insurer, it should not enter into the realm of disputed questions of fact. In fact, there was no disputed question of fact, but it required interpretation of the terms of the contract of insurance. Similarly, if the materials that come on record from which it is clearly evincible, the writ court may exercise the power of judicial review.
19. It is well settled that, where the rights which are sought to be agitated are purely of a private character no mandamus can be claimed. Even if the relief is sought against the State or its instrumentality, the precondition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is a public duty. In a dispute based on a purely contractual relationship, there being no public duty element, a writ of mandamus would not lie.
20. In Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 116] the Apex Court noticed that, even conceding that Bareilly Development Authority has the trappings of a State or would be comprehended in 'other authority' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, while determining price of the houses/flats constructed by it and the rate of monthly instalments to be paid, the 'authority' or its agent after entering into the field of ordinary contract acts purely in its executive
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 27 capacity. Thereafter, the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of Bareilly Development Authority in the said contractual field.
21. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar [(1977) 3 SCC 457], Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority [(1980) 2 SCC 129] and Divisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Company Ltd. [(1981) 3 SCC 238] is that, where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple.
22. In Bishwanath Tea Company Ltd. [(1981) 3 SCC 238] the Apex Court considered the question of maintainability of a writ petition in respect of a claim arising out of the contractual rights and obligations flowing from the terms of a lease. The Apex Court held that, it is undoubtedly true that High Court can entertain
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 28 in its extraordinary jurisdiction a petition to issue any of the prerogative writs for any other purpose. But such writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is a denial of equality before law or equal protection of law. The Corporation can also file a writ petition for enforcement of a right under a statute. On the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that Bishwanath Tea Company Ltd., the respondent company, was merely trying to enforce a contractual obligation. The obligation to pay royalty for timber cut and felled and removed is prescribed by the relevant regulations.
The validity of regulations is not challenged. Therefore, the demand for royalty is unsupported by law. What the respondent claimed was an exception that in view of a certain term in the indenture of lease, i.e., clause 2, the appellant is not entitled to demand and collect royalty from the respondent. This is nothing but enforcement of a term of a contract of lease. Hence, the question was whether such contractual obligation can be enforced by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, a party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if the contract is capable of being specifically performed, or the party may sue for damages. Such a
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 29 suit would ordinarily be cognisable by the civil court. The High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would not entertain a petition either for specific performance of a contract or for recovering damages. A right to relief flowing from a contract has to be claimed in a civil court where a suit for specific performance of a contract or for damages could be filed.
23. The legal principles that can be culled out from the decisions referred to supra are that, in a case where the contract entered into between the State and the person aggrieved is of a non-statutory character and the relationship is governed purely in terms of a contract between the parties, the contractual obligations are matters of private law and a writ would not lie to enforce a civil liability arising purely out of a contract. The proper remedy in such cases would be to file a civil suit for claiming damages, injunctions or specific performance or such appropriate reliefs in a competent civil court. Pure contractual obligation in the absence of any statutory complexion would not be enforceable through a writ.
24. In Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India [(2015) 7 SCC 728] the Apex Court held that there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 30 or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. In paragraph 69 of the decision, the Apex Court summarised the circumstances in which the Court would not normally exercise such discretion. In paragraph 70 the Apex Court summarised different situations/ aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties.
Paragraphs 69 and 70 of the said decision read thus;
“69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of the discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise.
It also follows that under the following circumstances, “normally”, the Court would not exercise such a discretion:
69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it.
69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration.
69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 31 which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination.
69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.
70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties, can be summarised as under:
70.1. At the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness.
70.2. State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practise some discriminations.
70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross- examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases the Court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc.
70.4. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 32 the Constitution was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred.
70.5. Writ petition was not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation.
Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business.
70.6. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages.
70.7. Writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law or if it can be shown that action of the public authorities was without giving any hearing and violation of principles of natural justice after holding that action could not have been taken without observing principles of natural justice.
70.8. If the contract between private party and the State/instrumentality and/or agency of the State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 33 aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction.
70.9. The distinction between public law and private law element in the contract with the State is getting blurred. However, it has not been totally obliterated and where the matter falls purely in private field of contract, this Court has maintained the position that writ petition is not maintainable. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinction between the public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision.
In fact, each case has to be examined, on its facts whether the contractual relations between the parties bear insignia of public element. Once on the facts of a particular case it is found that nature of the activity or controversy involves public law element, then the matter can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether action of the State and/or instrumentality or agency of the State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into the decision-making process or that the decision is not arbitrary.
70.10. Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 34 weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness.
70.11. The scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling 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.”
25. In the instant case, the contact entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is of a non-statutory character and the relationship is governed purely in terms of the contract between the parties, i.e., Ext.P1 tender conditions dated 25.10.2016. In such situations, the contractual obligations are matters of private law and a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not lie to enforce a civil liability arising purely out of that contract, since a pure contractual obligation in the absence of any statutory complexion would not be enforceable through a writ. As already noticed hereinbefore, based on Ext.P9(2) remarks of the 4th respondent Finance Commissioner, the Board has ordered Vigilance enquiry vide Ext.P10 order dated 04.09.2020.
The enquiry by the 5th respondent Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Security) is pending. In the counter affidavit filed by
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 35 the 6th respondent Deputy Director, serious irregularities are pointed out. Seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs.
26. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the disputes raised in this writ petition, in respect of supply of stationery items in Sabarimala Devaswom under Ext.P1 tender notification, cannot be decided in this writ petition filed by the petitioner, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the amount covered by Ext.P3 tax invoice, for the additional stationery items alleged to have been supplied by him in Sabarimala Devaswom, for the year 1192 ME (1st Vrischikam 1192 till 30th Thulam, 1193).
27. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 36 unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Sabarimala Devaswom is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the Act, under Chengannur Group, Pathanamthitta Taluk.
28.
Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. As per Section 16 of the Act, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department.
29.
As per Section 31 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated, and
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 37 unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage.
30.
In Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [1975 KLT 55] a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, under Section 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act the Travancore Devaswom Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard to the Devaswoms - incorporated and unincorporated - is analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshipper.
31. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require 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
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 38 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 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 from wrongful claims or misappropriation.
32. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that, in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The Division Bench further noticed that 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 is the guardian of the deity and apart from the revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 39 of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction.
33. In view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of Sabarimala Devaswom, which is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the said Act, under Chengannur Group. The Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom and conduct daily worship and ceremonies and also the festivals in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held by this Court in Ram Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55]. Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. Since the Deity being a perpetual minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protest and safeguard the interests and properties of the Deity and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction.
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 40
34.
In the instant case, certain irregularities are noted in the supply of stationery items by the petitioner in Sabarimala Devaswom, as evident from Ext.R9(2) remarks dated 12.08.2020 of the 4th respondent Finance Commissioner, based on which the Board has ordered Vigilance enquiry in the additional supply of stationery items, vide Ext.P10 order dated 04.09.2020. The 6th respondent Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department has pointed out various irregularities in the said transaction, in the counter affidavit dated 28.05.2022. Now the matter is under enquiry by the 5th respondent Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Security). In the facts and circumstances noticed as above, no interference is warranted in Ext.P10 order dated 04.09.2020, whereby the Board has ordered Vigilance enquiry into the matter. When the position of the Board is that of a Trustee in the management of Devaswom properties, the Board cannot be found fault with, in ordering Vigilance enquiry by Ext.P10 order. Ext.P9(2), which is only the remarks of the 4th respondent Finance Commissioner, cannot be challenged invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
35.
In the result, this writ petition filed on 08.11.2021 fails on the ground of maintainability and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 41
Registry to return the records handed over by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.10.2022, which are kept in safe custody by Registrar (Judicial), after obtaining a proper acknowledgement from the learned Standing Counsel.
Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE yd
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 42 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24765/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER DATED 25.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E.OP NO.131/17 DATED 20.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE IN FORM NO.8 DATED 28.06.2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.04.2018 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING HELD ON 05.09.2019 WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS OBTAINED AS PER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ROC 8064/16/SAB DATED 06.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EOP 422/19.SAB DATED 22.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL STATIONERY ITEMS SUPPLIED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 03.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRESIDENT OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REMARKS FCR NO.653/20/FC DATED 12.08.2020 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ROC NO.8064/16/SAB DATED 04.09.2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C)No.24765 of 2021 43
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. ROC 8064/16/SABA DATED 27.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STOCK REGISTER OF THE STATIONARY FOR THE PERIOD 1192 ME ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO. EOP 390/20/SABA DATED 16.9.2020.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE ITEM AS WELL AS THE EXCESS QUANTITY PREPARED WITH REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT P12 DATED 25.10.2022.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND SECURITY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 02.09.2021.
Exhibit R6(a) DETAILS OF THE STOCK, SUPPLY & CLAIM FOR STATIONERY ITEMS OF THE SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD AUDIT.