JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J W.P.(C) No.25040 of 2021 & Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 The issue involved in W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 and Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 relates to Ext.P2 tender notice dated 01.11.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, Vaikom, regarding the public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, for the period from 15.11.2021 to 20.01.2022. 2. W.P.(C)No.25040 of 2021 is one filed by Sri K. Vineeth Kumar, who is stated to be the successful bidder of the right to erect temporary stall during festival seasons in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple to conduct a Photo Shop, for years together. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner and other similar vendors, nearly seven in number, are the usual bidders, who bid space in Devaswom ground for conducting shops on a seasonal basis. Every year there will be an increase of 5% to 10% in the upset price fixed for the space. For the Navaratri festival, the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner conducted the auction on 30.09.2021, without any tender notice, to favour some outsiders to come into the field. The petitioner along with six other vendors submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 30.09.2021 before the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner and at his instance, a tender notice was issued and the auction was conducted on 04.10.2021. The petitioner and other vendors quoted a reasonably high rate of ground rent and the Advocate Commissioner fixed the rate at Rs.1,500/-per sq.ft., fixing Rs.15,000/-for 10 sq.ft. Accordingly, the petitioner bid the said premises from 04.10.2021 and the period expired on 30.10.2021. 2.1. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P2 tender notice dated 01.11.2021, regarding the public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, for the period from 15.11.2021 to 20.01.2022. As per Ext.P3 notice, the auction will be conducted under the supervision of the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner, on 08.11.2021. According to the petitioner, in violation of tender conditions, the 3rd respondent arbitrarily fixed a condition that the minimum tender amount (upset price) will be the average of the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the previous three years with 10% increase. According to the petitioner, in violation of tender conditions, the 3rd respondent arbitrarily fixed a condition that the minimum tender amount (upset price) will be the average of the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the previous three years with 10% increase. This was objected to by the petitioner and other bidders. The petitioner demanded fixation of the minimum tender amount at 5% above the tender amount for the previous year, i.e., Rs.1,575/-per sq.ft. However, the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner fixed the minimum tender amount as Rs.1,650/-per sq.ft., which was objected to by the 3rd respondent, and therefore tender could not be finalised. 2.2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 08.11.2021 before the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner with a request to fix the minimum tender amount (upset price) during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, 10% above the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the previous year, instead of 10% above the average tender amount for the previous three years. In the writ petition, it is alleged that there is a rift between the Devaswom officials, especially respondents 3 and 4, and the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner, who is supervising the conduct of tender from the year 2008 onwards. 2.3. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to complete the tender proceedings regarding the public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumannoor Sree Mahadeva Temple during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, on or before 16.11.2021; a declaration that the decision of the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court in respect of all the proceedings, including fixation of tender amount, shall be final, in pursuance to Ext.P2 tender notice; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner to comply with the tender conditions by fixing 10% hike of the previous year's tender amount as the minimum tender amount to be quoted by the tenderers in the auction during the current year. 2.4. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for admission as item No.103 in the admission list, it was ordered to be listed at 4.00 p.m., along with Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 filed by the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner dated 11.11.2021. 3. 2.4. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for admission as item No.103 in the admission list, it was ordered to be listed at 4.00 p.m., along with Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 filed by the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner dated 11.11.2021. 3. Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 is one filed by the learned Advocate Commissioner, the 5th respondent in W.P. (C)No.25040 of 2021, seeking urgent orders and directions for conducting the public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197 ME, for the period from 15.11.2021 to 20.01.2022. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the report of the learned Advocate commissioner dated 11.11.2021 read thus; “8. With respect to the auction for this year's Navarathri festival, telephonic information was given to me by the Administrative Officer in the evening of 29.9.2021 that the auction is scheduled by the Deputy Commissioner on 30.9.2021 at 11 am. I have also received complaints from some prospective bidders that auction notice was not published and auction is going to be conducted on the next day at 11 am after some oral publicity. I have also received a written complaint in this regard. Immediately, on 29.9.2021, I informed the Administrative Officer that the auction cannot be conducted in this manner by the Deputy Commissioner in an arbitrary manner against the earlier directions of this Honourable Court without publishing proper notice even though the bidders may be few for the limited shops. I have told the Administrative Officer to fix the date of auction as 4.10.2021 in consultation with the Deputy Commissioner and publish a notice and then conduct the auction since I was at Sabarimala during this period on official duty. Accordingly, a written notice was published on 30.9.2021, and auction was conducted only on 4.10.2021 and few shops were taken on auction by the traders and the auction period is also over. 9. With respect to this year's auction for Mandalam Makaravilakku season from 15.11.2021 to 20.1.2022, I have informed the Administrative Officer to publish the auction notice well in advance by fixing the date of auction on 8.11.2021 at 10.30AM under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner. Thus, an auction notice was published on the notice board and some other conspicuous places in the locality of the temple. Thus, an auction notice was published on the notice board and some other conspicuous places in the locality of the temple. Auction notice also was shown to many of the prospective bidders including traders in occupation of the temporary shops and their signatures were taken in the auction notice with respect to this auction. A copy of the auction notice dated 1.11.2021 published in this regard along with the signatures of the prospective bidders and others is produced herewith and marked as Annexure C1. As per this notice, I went to Ettumanoor Sree Mahadevar Temple to oversee and supervise the auction being conducted on 8.11.2021 at 10.30AM. Good number of prospective bidders came to participate in the auction. The Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Administrative Officer and other staff of the Devaswom as well as the Secretary and members of the Temple Advisory Committee also were present. I conducted deliberations with the officials stating about the ground reality that this year also how far pilgrims to Sabarimala will come during Mandalam-Makaravilakku season is an uncertainty and as such we cannot expect the same crowd which were available prior to the spreading of Covid 19 Pandemic. 10. In the year before Covid 19 pandemic started, I had conducted auction and substantial amount running to lakhs were received by the TDB as stated earlier in this report and also recorded in the auction mahazar. But during the last 2 seasons, there was considerable reduction in the income and as such, I suggested that we will take the average of immediate 2 previous years' auction amount and add 10% to that and conduct the auction. But the Deputy Commissioner informed me that it cannot be done and as per the Boards Order, income of the last 3 years is to be taken and conducted the auction. On calculation made in that regard, it was found that the basic amount being an average of the past 3 years was from minimum of Rs.48,500/-up to a maximum of Rs.73,500/-for independent plots and the open area in the ground also from petty traders amount used to be received. These particulars are in the auction mahazar as stated above. On calculation made in that regard, it was found that the basic amount being an average of the past 3 years was from minimum of Rs.48,500/-up to a maximum of Rs.73,500/-for independent plots and the open area in the ground also from petty traders amount used to be received. These particulars are in the auction mahazar as stated above. Since the amount collected at a time when there was no Covid 19 pandemic at all being linked with the 2 years where there was Covid 19 and since the average amount was substantially high and 10% was also added with that, it was very difficult for conducting the auction and even though all the plots were put in auction, nobody came forward to bid even a single shop. The earnest money deposited by the participants were thus returned. The auction mahazar prepared in that regard by the officials of the TDB with respect to the auction conducted on 8.11.2021 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure C2. All the persons gathered in the hall for participating in the auction unanimously voiced that as always done in the past, as per the rules of TDB for conducting auction, only the just previous years amount can only be taken into account as base amount and 10% more can be added with it to commence the auction for the current season.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.25040 of 2021, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned Advocate Commissioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the stand taken by the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner that the minimum tender amount (upset price) for the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, will be the average of the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the previous three years with 10% increase, is per se arbitrary and illegal. The 3rd respondent is bound to accept the decision of the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner, who is the authority to supervise the tender proceedings, that the minimum tender amount for Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME will be the tender amount for the previous year with 10% increase. The 3rd respondent is bound to accept the decision of the 5th respondent Advocate Commissioner, who is the authority to supervise the tender proceedings, that the minimum tender amount for Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME will be the tender amount for the previous year with 10% increase. At any rate, considering the situation prevailing in the State on account Covid 19 pandemic, the 3rd respondent should not have insisted on such a condition in the auction for the current year. 6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would point out that, as stated in paragraph 10 of Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 of the learned Advocate Commissioner, the 3rd respondent has pointed out at the time of the auction held on 08.11.2021, the Board Order to conduct auction taking into account the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the last three years. On 08.11.2021, the 3rd respondent has acted only in accordance with the Board Order. The allegations to the contra are absolutely without any basis. The very same criteria are being adopted in all temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The learned Standing Counsel would also point out that the auction amount for stall No.2 in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple was Rs.67,000/-for the year 2018-19, Rs.67,300/-for the year 2019-20 and Rs.15,000/-for the year 2020-21. Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple is a major temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board and it is an edathavalam for Sabarimala pilgrims. 7. The learned Advocate Commissioner would submit that, as stated in Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010, considering the situation prevailing in the State due to Covid 19 pandemic, it was suggested during the auction held on 08.11.2021 that, the minimum tender amount (upset price) for the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197 ME, can be fixed taking the average of two previous years auction amount and adding 10% to that and conduct the auction, the 3rd respondent pointed out that there is Board Order to conduct auction taking into account the tender amount for the last three years. Since all the persons who participated in the auction demanded that, as done in the past, only the previous years’ amount can be taken into account as base amount and 10% more can be added for fixing the minimum tender amount, the auction was postponed and Report No.69 is filed before this Court for necessary directions. The auction mahazar prepared on 08.11.2021 is placed on record as Annexure C2 along with Report No.69 filed by the learned Advocate Commissioner. 8. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned Advocate Commissioner we find that, at the time of the auction held on 08.11.2021, the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner has pointed out the Board Order to conduct auction during the current year, taking into account the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the last three years, as per which the minimum tender amount (upset price) for the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197 ME, will be the average of the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the previous three years with 10% increase. As pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the very same criteria are being adopted in all temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board. When the said criteria adopted by the Board is in force, the petitioner or any other trader cannot insist that the minimum tender amount (upset price) should be the average of the tender amount for the previous year with 10% increase. Therefore, the 3rd respondent cannot be found fault with in not accepting the suggestion made by the learned Advocate Commissioner that the minimum tender amount during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME can be fixed taking the average auction amount of two previous years with 10% increase. 9. In Anoop S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and another [2016 SCC OnLine Kerala 12005] -Judgment dated 02.06.2016 in W.P.(C)No.18841 and 19098 of 2016 -the challenge was against the revision of vazhipadu rates brought in by the Travancore Devaswom Board as per ROC dated 01.04.2016. 9. In Anoop S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and another [2016 SCC OnLine Kerala 12005] -Judgment dated 02.06.2016 in W.P.(C)No.18841 and 19098 of 2016 -the challenge was against the revision of vazhipadu rates brought in by the Travancore Devaswom Board as per ROC dated 01.04.2016. The Division Bench noticed that the Travancore Devaswom Board, which is vested with the authority to administer the religious institutions falling under its control, also has the power to regulate the activities, except those matters which relate to issues connected with rituals and practices, which fall within the domain of the Thantries, Poojaries, etc. Issues relating to the rates of vazhipadu gained attention during different stages as and when the Travancore Devaswom Board had revised the rates or had refused to revise the rates. In so far as the rates are concerned, the courts cannot substitute its wisdom or ideas about the rates for commodities or articles for the performance of poojas utilising articles and materials. It would not be wise for the judiciary to step into that area, unless of course it is shown that the action has been taken in a totally perverse and unreasonable manner unguided by any yardstick whatsoever. 10. In Anoop S. the Division Bench noticed that there is some classification between what is called 'muthalkoottu' and the price of articles or dravyam for the poojas, homams, etc. Muthalkoottu represents the amount that will go to the Travancore Devaswom Board's account. This cannot be equated as the amount specifically due for the purpose of the activity being carried on in connection with each pooja or homam. The Division Bench found that it is muthalkootu that adds on to the income of the Travancore Devaswom Board which will have to be appropriately utilised for running the different establishments of the Travancore Devaswom Board and also for paying salaries and supporting the infrastructure and activities of Travancore Devaswom Board. Therefore, a revision in the mothalkootu cannot ipso facto be treated as something that requires intervention through judicial power. In so far as the price of dravyams, etc. are concerned, it depends on various aspects that may also depend upon the local conditions. It would also have some nexus to the type of the temple, the practice and the total number of particular types of poojas or homams that happen in each such temple. In so far as the price of dravyams, etc. are concerned, it depends on various aspects that may also depend upon the local conditions. It would also have some nexus to the type of the temple, the practice and the total number of particular types of poojas or homams that happen in each such temple. This is best left to the administrative sector rather than for judicial review. 11. In Radhakrishna Pillai N. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ 2018 (1) KHC 599 ] it was contended before the Division Bench by the petitioner, who is a devotee of Kottarakkara Sree Maha Ganapathy Temple that the increase in the rate of ‘unniappam’ made by the Devaswom is to an unconscionable extent, without any regard to the nature and sanctity of 'vazhipadu', which is an offering to the deity. It was also stated that every opportunity is being taken by the Devaswom to make it an 'industrial activity' and to procure undue advantage, under the guise of necessity to enhance the rate, with reference to the price escalation of the raw materials and labour. The version of the Devaswom, as put forth by the learned Standing Counsel, was that fixation of price of vazhipadu item is purely an administrative action at the hands of the Devaswom, which does not call for judicial scrutiny. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of the Division Bench in Anoop S. [2016 SCC OnLine Kerala 12005]. It was also pointed out that unification of the rate of the various 'vazhipadu' items was felt necessary by the Board and it was accordingly, that ROC dated 01.04.2016 was issued, seeking to implement the revised rates, which was the subject matter of consideration in Anoop S. The Division Bench observed in paragraph 6 of that judgment, that insofar as the rates are concerned, the courts cannot substitute its wisdom or ideas about the rates for commodities or articles for performance of poojas utilising articles and materials. In the very next sentence, the Division Bench observed that it would not be wise for the judiciary to step into that area, unless of course it is shown that the action has been taken in a totally perverse and unreasonable manner unguided by any yardstick whatsoever. In the very next sentence, the Division Bench observed that it would not be wise for the judiciary to step into that area, unless of course it is shown that the action has been taken in a totally perverse and unreasonable manner unguided by any yardstick whatsoever. The Division Bench in Radhakrishna Pillai N. found that this by itself is sufficient to indicate that, if any arbitrary exercise is demonstrated as pursued by the Devaswom, it is quite possible for this Court to intervene in larger public interest, especially to protect the rights and liberties of the devotees to the requisite extent. 12. The tender amount (auctioned amount) for the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple is muthalkootu that adds on to the income of the Travancore Devaswom Board which will have to be appropriately utilised for running the different establishments of the Board and also for paying salaries and supporting its infrastructure and activities. This Court cannot substitute its wisdom or ideas about the manner in which the minimum tender amount (upset price) has to be fixed by the Board. As held in the decisions referred to supra, it would not be wise for this Court to step into that area, unless of course it is shown that the action has been taken by the Board in a totally perverse and unreasonable manner unguided by any yardstick whatsoever. 13. In the instant case, as already noticed, at the time of the auction held on 08.11.2021, the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner has pointed out the Board Order to conduct auction during the current year, taking into account the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the last three years. In view of that Board Order, the minimum tender amount (upset price) for the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197 ME, will have to be the average of the tender amount (auctioned amount) for the previous three years with 10% increase. The very same criteria are being adopted in all temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The said Board order is not under challenge in this writ petition. 14. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The very same criteria are being adopted in all temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The said Board order is not under challenge in this writ petition. 14. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. In Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 the learned Advocate Commissioner is seeking orders and directions from this Court for conducting a public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197ME, for the period from 15.11.2021 to 20.01.2022. 16. In Sreekumar V. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ 2015 (2) KHC 714 ], a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] is a party, directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to incorporate the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (xiii) in Para 6 of the order dated 09.02.2015 in W.P.(C)No.3206 of 2014 with necessary modifications in all tender notifications issued by the Board to conduct public auction of the right to open temporary stalls/shops on the Devaswom property of all the temples under the Devaswom, treating it as general guidelines. In that writ petition, this Court was dealing with the irregularities pointed out in the conduct of the public auction of the right to conduct temporary stalls/ shops on the Devaswom property of Sree Vallabha Maha Temple, Thiruvalla, during the annual festival season. Clauses (i) to (xiii) in Para 6 of the order dated 09.02.2015 read thus: "(i) The auction shall be confined to 49 plots identified in the site sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvalla and produced before this Court; (ii) The upset price for the plots shall be as mentioned in the statement prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvalla and produced before this Court; (iii) The auction shall be conducted in the presence of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board, who shall ensure that the intending bidders are not prevented in any manner by persons with vested interests. The Chief Vigilance Officer shall also seek Police assistance for the smooth conduct of the auction, if found necessary; (iv) At the time of auction, the bidders shall carry their voter's identity card issued by the Election Commission of India or any other proof of identity recognised by the Government and shall also furnish a self-attested photostat copy of the identity card to the Officer conducting the auction. (v) The intending bidders shall produce the requisite EMD by way of Demand Draft drawn in their name. (vi) No bidder shall be permitted to bid for more than one plot. If there are vacant plots after the auction, such plots shall be put to auction on the very next day at the very same time. In the absence of sufficient number of bidders on the second day, more than one plot can be allotted to a single bidder; (vii) No licensee shall be permitted to put up more than one stall/shop on a single plot; (viii) No person shall be permitted to conduct any stall/shop in an area other than that shown in the sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvalla; (ix) No licensee shall have the right to re-auction/sub-let the plot to a third party and if any such instance comes to the notice of the Board, the Board shall be entitled to cancel such license forthwith and evict the licensee from the plot, by forfeiting the entire license fee. But the Board shall give the licensee a reasonable time to remove his articles; (x) The licensee should personally conduct the business in the stall/shop put up on the plot taken in auction and he should also carry his proof of identity with him while conducting such business; (xi) No licensee shall be permitted to occupy the plot allotted to him beyond the period of the license. But it would be open to the Board to give a grace period up to one week, after collecting proportionate license fee, to enable the licensee to remove his articles from the plot or for selling the balance articles; (xii) No member of the Temple Advisory Committee or their near relations, or the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board or their near relations shall be entitled to participate in the auction either personally or as a nominee of another; (xiii) No bidder shall interfere with the conduct of any religious rites, rituals, customs, practises and other ceremonies of the temple. Bidders shall be bound to follow the temple manners and instructions issued by the Board from time to time, failing which he will be summarily evicted after forfeiting the entire license fee." 17. In K.N. Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2015 SCC OnLine Kerala 11672], a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] is a party, held that, in view of the judgment in Sreekumar V., any public auction of the right to open temporary shops/stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple temple and also in the Kovil Padam Road owned by the Devaswom can be conducted only in terms of the general guidelines framed in that judgment. By the judgment dated 27.03.2015 that writ petition was disposed of with the following directions; “1. The Travancore Devaswom Board shall conduct public auction of the right to open temporary shops/stalls in the premises of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple and also in the Kovil Padam Road strictly in terms of the guidelines issued by this Court in the judgment dated 19.3.2015 in W.P.(C)No.3206 of 2014 and TDB Report No.13 of 2015, with necessary modifications. 2. The auction shall be confined to the shops earmarked in Annex.A1 and A2 sketches prepared by the Executive Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Kottayam, who shall ensure that pits of the size of 4 inches diameter and 1½ feet depth at 4 corners of each of the plots earmarked in Annex.A1 and A2 are provided so as to enable the auctioneers to insert pillars in it for erecting their shops. 3. 3. Annex.A1 and A2 sketches showing the demarcation of the shops/stalls shall be displayed in front of the auction hall so that the prospective bidders can have a fair idea as to the location of the shops. 4. Advocate Sri A.S.P. Kurup, the Chairman of the Temple Advisory Committee appointed by this Court shall take necessary steps for conducting the auction well in advance and the entire process shall be completed at least seven days before the commencement of festival season. The Office of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall meet the expenses incurred by him for conducting the auction and they shall give wide publicity of the auction proposed to be held. 5. The Officers of the Board shall ensure that the conduct of business in the stalls/shops does not in any way affect the free ingress and egress of the devotees in any manner. 6. In order to have free ingress and egress of the devotees and for their free movement, the entry of two wheelers and other vehicles including petty traders, lottery sellers, etc., shall not be permitted in the area between the Kalyanamandapam up to the Aalthara, i.e., for a distance of 10 meters from the Kalyana-mandapam, which can be ensured by putting up a steel chain or temporary fence during the festival seasons, without causing any obstruction for the movement of elephants.” 18. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the writ petition it is stated that, the petitioner and other similar vendors, nearly seven in number, are the usual bidders, who bid space in Devaswom ground for conducting shops on a seasonal basis. For the Navaratri festival, the 3rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner conducted the auction on 30.09.2021, without any tender notice, to favour some outsiders to come into the field. The petitioner and other similar vendors, styling themselves as ‘usual bidders’ cannot claim any preferential right in the public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Temple festivals. The officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall take necessary steps to ensure that the conduct of trade in the stalls/shops is strictly in terms of the directions contained in the two decisions referred to supra and the guidelines issued by the Board. 19. The officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall take necessary steps to ensure that the conduct of trade in the stalls/shops is strictly in terms of the directions contained in the two decisions referred to supra and the guidelines issued by the Board. 19. In Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 it is ordered that the learned Advocate Commissioner shall conduct another public auction of the right to erect temporary stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, during Mandala Makaravilakku Maholsavam 1197 ME, for the period from 15.11.2021 to 20.01.2022, on 14.11.2021 at 10.30 am. 20. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board shall communicate the outcome of this writ petition and also the order in Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 to the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Vaikom, today itself. List Report No.69 in D.B.A.No.2 of 2010 before Bench on 16.11.2021.