JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner was the Kuthaka holder in Chettikulangara Devaswom for the sale of pooja items in Chettikulangara Devi Temple, for the year 2021-22. The petitioner bid the auction for a sum of Rs.26,84,500/-. As per the tender conditions, the said amount has to be remitted by way of three installments, the first installment being half of the total amount. Accordingly, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.13,42,250/- on the date of the bid itself. The petitioner has also remitted a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the 2nd installment on 08.09.2021. He defaulted payment of the balance amount of Rs.10,42,000/-. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.21234 of 2021, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to exempt him from payment of the contractual amount, during the period in which the temple was closed due to COVID-19 pandemic, in the year 2021-22. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-schedule the installments for payment of the balance contractual amount. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 11.10.2021. Paragraph 3 to 6 of that judgment reads thus: “3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner could not open the shop for a considerably long period, on account of COVID-19 restrictions. Despite all these circumstances, the petitioner had made payments except Rs.10,42,000/-, out of Rs.26,84,500/-. Pointing out the circumstances, which prevented the petitioner from remitting the said amount of Rs.10,42,000/-, he has already made Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. In case any coercive steps are taken by the 4th respondent, pending consideration of Ext.P4, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that considering the situation prevailing in the State on account of COVID-19 pandemic, sufficient time has already been granted by the Travancore Devaswom Board for payment of 2nd and 3rd installments by successful bidders, by extending the time for payment of those installments. The Secretary of the Board shall consider Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 5. The Secretary of the Board shall consider Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent-Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner, within a time limit to be specified in this judgment, on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 6. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the 4th respondent Administrative Officer of Chettikulangara Devaswom, towards his liability to pay installment, in terms of the tender conditions for sale of pooja items (enna, thiri, karpooram, etc.) in Chettikulangara Devi Temple, for the year 2021-22. On such payment being made, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of two weeks. (ii) the 4th respondent shall keep in abeyance any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovering the balance dues in respect of the contract in question, till expiry of the time limit fixed in this judgment for the 2nd respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P4 representation, in case the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the 4th respondent, within the time limit specified as above.” 2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.(C)No.21234 of 2021, seeking enlargement of the time limit to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, as per the direction contained in the judgment of this Court dated 11.10.2021. In that interlocutory application, this Court passed Ext.P2 order dated 08.12.2021. Paragraph 8 and 9 of that order reads thus: “8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that only due to the financial stringency created on account of pandemic situation and the consequent decrease in the number of devotees coming to the Temple, the petitioner was not able to make payment in time, in spite of his earnest efforts. Paragraph 8 and 9 of that order reads thus: “8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that only due to the financial stringency created on account of pandemic situation and the consequent decrease in the number of devotees coming to the Temple, the petitioner was not able to make payment in time, in spite of his earnest efforts. The period of the contract is up to 31.03.2022. After filing of this application, the petitioner has remitted the balance amount remaining to be paid as per the directions contained in the judgment dated 11.10.2021. Taking into account all such aspects, we are of the view that the delay can be condoned on the condition of payment of 50% of the balance amount of Rs.5,42,250/-, which remains to be paid by the petitioner within one week from today. C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2021 and I.A.No.1 of 2021 are, accordingly, allowed on that condition. 9. If the petitioner makes remittance of the amount as above, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of two weeks.” 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow him to remit the dues, if any, with respect to Kuthaka right in Chettikulangara Devi Temple, in respect of the year 2020-21, after deducting the EMD deposited on 30.03.2020, for the year 2019-20, with 18% interest therefrom. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment, the representation made by the petitioner was considered, which has already been rejected. 6. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. 6. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. 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. 7. Section 24 of the Act deals with maintenance of Devaswoms, etc., out of Devaswom Fund. As per Section 24, the Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund constituted under Section 25, maintain the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I [i.e. incorporated Devaswoms], keep in a state of good repair the temples, buildings, and other appurtenances thereto, administer the said Devaswoms in accordance with recognised usages, make contributions to other Devaswoms in or outside the State and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies and may provide for the educational upliftment, social and cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community. 8. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. As per Section 31, 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 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. 9. Under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Sabarimala are performed promptly; to monitor whether the administrative officials and the employees, and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in Sabarimala for the devotees. The Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund, maintain and administer Sabarimala Devaswom in accordance with recognised usages and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies. The Board shall manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in Sabarimala according to the usage. 10. In Rajani P. Kuttan v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (6) KHC 513 ] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that among the 1250 Temples managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only 60 major Temples are self-sufficient and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. The total number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Travancore Devaswom Board is 5692 and the total number of pensioners is 5749. The major source of revenue of the Travancore Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offerings by the devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the Temples. Paragraph 59 of the said decision reads thus; “59. The financial position of the Devaswom Board:- The competent officer of the Devaswom Board filed an affidavit dated 14.06.2021 stating its financial position. It is submitted that there are 1250 temples under the Administrative Control of the Devaswom Board. The total number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Devaswom Board is 5692, and the total number of pensioners is 5749. It is further submitted that the major sources of revenue of the Devaswom Board are the income received by way of offerings from devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu, and the revenue generated through the auction of the temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples. Besides this, the Devaswom Board gets an approximate sum of 14 crores per annum by way of the rent of the buildings owned by it. The annual contribution from the State Government under Article 290A of the Constitution of India is Rs. 80 lakhs. It is further submitted that among the 1250 temples managed by the Devaswom Board, only 60 major temples are self-sufficient, and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. The annual contribution from the State Government under Article 290A of the Constitution of India is Rs. 80 lakhs. It is further submitted that among the 1250 temples managed by the Devaswom Board, only 60 major temples are self-sufficient, and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. Now, due to the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, the temples remain closed, and the major source of income has come down. The Devaswom Board is finding it difficult even to pay the salary of the existing employees. The pleadings regarding the financial position of the Devaswom Board in the affidavit dated 14.06.2021 have not been controverted by the petitioners.” (underline supplied) 11. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not, therefore, occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property if at all that was necessary, to the best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs. 21,500/-, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 12. In Smt. Sushila Devi v. Hari Singh [ (1971) 2 SCC 288 ] the Apex Court held that Section 56 of the Contract Act lays down a rule of positive law and does not leave the matter to be determined according to the intention of the parties. The impossibility contemplated by Section 56 of the Contract Act is not confined to something which is not humanly possible. If the performance of a contract becomes impracticable or useless having regard to the object and purpose of the parties had in view then it must be held that the performance of the contract has become impossible. But the supervening events should take away the basis of the contract and it should be of such a character that it strikes at the root of the contract. As noticed, here even the petitioner has not shown that the supervening events have struck at the root of the contract. In other words, it has not become humanly impossible to perform the contract. Even though for some time in the beginning, it had become more onerous to get returns as expected by him, after lifting the ban in entering of devotees in temple, devotees have resumed visiting the temple and thus the petitioner has started supplying materials as required under the contract. After starting to supply materials, he cannot turn round and say that the contract has become impossible of performance and frustrated. He cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. 13. In Harikumar G. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ILR (2021) 1 Ker 1050] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which extension of licence period for selling pooja items in Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple was sought for in the background of Covid-19 pandemic. While declining the said prayer, the Division Bench noticed that, even the petitioner has not shown that the supervening events have struck at the root of the contract. In other words, it has not become humanly impossible to perform the contract. While declining the said prayer, the Division Bench noticed that, even the petitioner has not shown that the supervening events have struck at the root of the contract. In other words, it has not become humanly impossible to perform the contract. Even though for some time in the beginning, it had become more onerous to get returns as expected by him, after lifting the ban in entering of devotees in temple, devotees have resumed visiting the temple and thus the petitioner has started supplying materials as required under the contract. After starting to supply materials, he cannot turn round and say that the contract has become impossible of performance and frustrated. 14. In Suresan Nair T.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 2021 (6) KHC 837 ] one of the contentions raised by the petitioners was that, due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and the turn of events thereby, the contract could not be performed and has become frustrated. The Division Bench held that, when the case of the petitioners is that there is no binding contract, they cannot plead frustration of contract. The Division Bench noticed that the issue regarding frustration of contract was elaborately considered by this Court in Harikumar G. [ILR (2021) 1 Ker 1050], wherein extension of licence period for selling pooja items in Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple was sought for in the background of Covid-19 pandemic. The Division Bench further noticed that the lock down and the resultant restriction in entry of devotees to temples on account of Covid-19 pandemic did not cover the entire period of contract. After lifting the lock down and when the temples were opened for devotees, they could conduct business for the rest of the period of contract. The petitioners were doing business during the previous season also on getting the kuthaka/right. As observed in Harikumar G. [ILR (2021) 1 Ker 1050], in contractual matters, unforeseen eventualities are bound to happen. For the reason that contractors could reap good profit during a season do not bind them to pay any additional amount to the Board. In the said decision, this Court also held that alteration of circumstances does not lead to frustration of contract and that the doctrine of frustration has to be applied narrowly. For the reason that contractors could reap good profit during a season do not bind them to pay any additional amount to the Board. In the said decision, this Court also held that alteration of circumstances does not lead to frustration of contract and that the doctrine of frustration has to be applied narrowly. In Harikumar G. [ILR (2021) 1 Ker 1050], relying on the decision in Travancore Devaswom Board v. Thanath International [ (2004) 13 SCC 44 ], the Division Bench held that, merely because performance had become more onerous is not a ground for non-performance or for claiming enhancement of price. Since the petitioners could do business during the rest of the term of the contract on lifting the restrictions, it cannot be said that the contract has become impossible for performance. Frustration of contract happens when the execution of contract is wholly impossible. The supervening events followed by the pandemic have not made the execution of contract wholly impossible, though it might have made the performance of contract more onerous and difficult. Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification to wriggle out of the contractual obligations which the parties had accepted with open eyes. 15. In Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022/KER/6409 : 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642], a Division Bench of this Court in which both of us were parties, was dealing with a case in which Kuthaka right for running Aymanam Sri. Narasimha-swami Auditorium (sadyalayam) constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was auctioned for a period of two years. The writ petitioner, who was the successful bidder, remitted only 50% of the auction amount on 18.07.2019. Though he had defaulted payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,20,500/-, he was permitted to continue to occupy the sadyalayam, even beyond the period of auction, i.e., beyond 31.07.2021. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against him till the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022, whereby they were directed to take over possession of the sadyalayam forthwith, if found necessary with police assistance. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against him till the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022, whereby they were directed to take over possession of the sadyalayam forthwith, if found necessary with police assistance. In the said decision, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ], this Court found that, the concerned officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who have permitted the successful bidder (who has remitted only 50% of the auction amount) to continue to occupy the sadyalayam, even beyond the period of the auction, have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. 16. In Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ILR (2022) 1 Ker 1091 : 2022/KER/5139], a Division Bench of this Court in which both of us were parties, was dealing with the Kuthaka right to sell pooja items in the premises of Valliamkavu Devi Temple, which is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the said decision, this Court held that the properties of deities and temples are required to be protected and safeguarded from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. Persons entrusted with the duty to manage such properties should be vigilant to prevent such usurpation or encroachment. When such usurpation or encroachment is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, such acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The officers concerned and the devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from usurpation or encroachment, wrongful claims or misappropriation. Therefore, the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Administrative Officer were directed to take stern action against those who have defaulted payment of installments in respect of Kuthaka items, in violation of the tender conditions, if found necessary, after seeking police assistance. In the said decision, it was made clear that, if any such request is received, it is the duty of the concerned Station House Officer to render necessary assistance to the concerned Assistant Commissioner or the Administrative Officer, in order to protect and safeguard the properties of deities and temples from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. 17. In the said decision, it was made clear that, if any such request is received, it is the duty of the concerned Station House Officer to render necessary assistance to the concerned Assistant Commissioner or the Administrative Officer, in order to protect and safeguard the properties of deities and temples from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. 17. In Sunil Kumar P.G. v. State of Kerala and others [2022/KER/71822] a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, the entire e-tender for Kuthaka items in Sabarimala Devaswom, from Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1199 ME (2023-24) onwards shall be conducted, after publishing an auction notification specifying the highest bid for the previous three years, excluding the period during which there were restrictions on account of Covid-19 pandemic. After completion of the tender process, the details of the successful bidders along with the bid amount, the balance bid amount payable, its due date, etc., shall be exhibited on the official website of the Board. The list of those who have defaulted payment of the balance bid amount shall also be exhibited on the official website. The list of defaulters shall be forwarded to the Devaswom Commissioner for necessary action. A copy of that list shall also be forwarded to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. 18. In Sunil Kumar P.G. [2022/KER/71822] this Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to adopt a similar procedure in respect of all major temples under its management, in which the annual income is above Rs.2 Crore. In respect of such temples, the list of defaulters shall be forwarded to the Devaswom Commissioner for necessary action. The Kuthaka holders, who have defaulted payment of the balance bid amount, shall be proceeded against, in accordance with the tender conditions. In appropriate cases, proceedings shall also be initiated for blacklisting. In the said decision, this Court ordered that the successful bidders and their staff, if any, in respect of Kuthaka items in Sabarimala Devaswom and other Devaswoms under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be issued with photo identity cards. They shall be required to produce police clearance certificate. In respect of Kuthaka items above Rs.5,00,000/-, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall insist on the Income Tax particulars of the bidders. 19. They shall be required to produce police clearance certificate. In respect of Kuthaka items above Rs.5,00,000/-, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall insist on the Income Tax particulars of the bidders. 19. DBP No.64 of 2022 was registered suo motu based on the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 18.10.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 25350 of 2022. In the said judgment, this Court noticed that, even after the dismissal of W.P.(C)No. 13039 of 2020 filed by the Kuthaka holder for conducting pooja stall in Kottarakkara PD Manikandeswaram Temple, for the year 2020-2021, by the judgment dated 06.07.2021, the Administrative Officer of Kottarakkara PD Manikandeswaram Temple and the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Kottarakkara Group have not taken any steps against the Kuthaka holder, for recovering the balance bid amount Rs. 67,00,000/-, openly flouting the law laid down by this Court in Abu K.S. [2022/KER/6409] and Suneesh K.S. [ILR (2022) 1 Ker 1091]. By the order dated 13.12.2022 in DBP No.64 of 2022 – Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 9828] – this Court directed the State of Kerala to proceed with the request made by the Travancore Devaswom Board to make applicable the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, to recover the amounts due to the Board from any person or class of persons, in view of the similar notifications issued under Section 71 of the said Act, in respect of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and Cochin Devaswom Board. In the said order, this Court noticed that, when the provisions under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act have already been made applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any person or class of persons to the Guruvayur Devaswom, vide the notification published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 1263 dated 02.08.2006, and to the Cochin Devaswom Board, vide the notification published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 688 dated 11.02.2021, since the Government found it necessary in public interest to make applicable the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act to the Guruvayur Devaswom and the Cochin Devaswom Board, there is no justification whatsoever in not issuing similar notification in respect of Travancore Devaswom Board, for ensuring realisation of the amounts due to the Travancore Devaswom Board from any person or class of persons. 20. Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act deals with audit. 20. Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act deals with audit. As per sub-section (9) of Section 32, if, on a consideration of the report of the auditor or otherwise, the High Court thinks that the Board or any member thereof was guilty of misappropriation or wilful waste of the funds of the institutions or of gross neglect resulting in a loss to the institutions under the management of the Board, the High Court may, after giving notice to the Board or the member as the case may be, to show cause why an order of surcharge should not be passed against the Board or the member, and after considering the explanation, if any, pass an order of surcharge against the Board or the member, as the case may be. Section 32 of the Act reads thus; “32. Audit.- (1) The Board shall keep regular accounts of all receipts and disbursements in respect of the institutions under its administration. (2) The accounts of the Board shall be audited annually. (3) The audit shall be made by auditors appointed by the High Court. (4) Every auditor appointed under this section shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 15 of the Travancore Penal Code. (5) After completing the audit for any year or for any shorter period or for any transaction or series of transactions, as the case may be, the auditor shall send a report to the High Court. (6) The auditor shall specify in his report all cases of irregular, illegal or improper expenditure or of failure to recover moneys or other property due to the Board or to the institutions under their management or of loss or waste of money or other property thereof caused by neglect or misconduct. (7) The auditor shall also report on any other matter relating to the accounts as may be prescribed or on which the High Court may require him to report. (8) The High Court shall send to the Board a copy of every audit report and it shall be the duty of the Board to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor and report the same to the High Court. (8) The High Court shall send to the Board a copy of every audit report and it shall be the duty of the Board to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor and report the same to the High Court. (9) If, on a consideration of the report of the auditor or otherwise, the High Court thinks that the Board or any member thereof was guilty of misappropriation or wilful waste of the funds of the institutions or of gross neglect resulting in a loss to the institutions under the management of the Board, the High Court may, after giving notice to the Board or the member as the case may be, to show cause why an order of surcharge should not be passed against the Board or the member, and after considering the explanation, if any, pass an order of surcharge against the Board or the member, as the case may be. (10) The order of surcharge may be executed against the member or members concerned of the Board as if it were a personal decree passed against them by the High Court. (11) An order of surcharge under this section shall not bar a suit for accounts against the Board or the member concerned except in respect of the matter finally dealt with by such order. (12) A copy of the audit report shall be supplied to any person who duly applies for the same.” 21. In the matter of Audit Report of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the year 1967-1968 (Sabarimala Improvement Fund) reported in [ (1990) 1 KLT 347 ], in the context of Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, a Division Bench of this Court reminded the President and Members of the Travancore Devaswom Board about their public accountability. In the said decision, it was made clear that it is for all persons concerned to see that greater vigil is exercised by the President and Members of the Board in the overall administration of the Board and in the collection and disbursement of funds. 22. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.21234 of 2021 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to exempt him from payment of the contractual amount, during the period in which the temple was closed due to COVID-19 pandemic, in the year 2021-22. 22. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.21234 of 2021 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to exempt him from payment of the contractual amount, during the period in which the temple was closed due to COVID-19 pandemic, in the year 2021-22. He has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-schedule the installments for payment of the balance contractual amount. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 11.10.2021, whereby he was directed to remit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the 4th respondent Administrative Officer, in terms of the tender conditions for sale of pooja items in Chettikulangara Devi Temple, for the year 2021-22. On such payment being made, the 2nd respondent Board was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2021, seeking extension of the time limit for payment of the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in terms of the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment. During the pendency of that interlocutory application, the petitioner remitted the balance amount. Therefore, by Ext.P2 order dated 08.12.2021, the delay in remitting the said amount was condoned, on condition that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the balance amount of Rs.5,42,250/-, which remains to be paid, within one week from the date of that order. 23. The grievance of the petitioner, in the earlier writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.21243 of 2021 was for exemption from payment of the contractual amount during the period in which the temple was closed due to Covid-19 pandemic, in the year 2021-22. The petitioner is not entitled to seek any such exemption from payment of the contractual amount, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Thanath International [ (2004) 13 SCC 44 ] and also the law laid down by this Court in Harikumar G. [ILR (2021) 1 Ker 1050] and Suresan Nair T.S. [ 2021 (6) KHC 837 ]. 24. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow him to remit the dues, if any, with respect to Kuthaka right in Chettikulangara Devi Temple, in respect of the year 2020-21, after deducting the EMD deposited on 30.03.2020 with 18% interest therefrom. 24. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow him to remit the dues, if any, with respect to Kuthaka right in Chettikulangara Devi Temple, in respect of the year 2020-21, after deducting the EMD deposited on 30.03.2020 with 18% interest therefrom. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner, who is a defaulter in payment of the balance bid amount in respect of Kuthaka right for the year 2021-22, is entitled to seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow him to remit the dues, after deducting the EMD deposited on 30.03.2020, for the year 2019-20, with 18% interest therefrom. 25. This Court had occasion to consider the very same issue in Kuttan Unnithan v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022/KER/48732] in respect of the Kuthaka holder for selling flower garlands in Chettikulangara Devi Temple, for the year 2022-23, who filed that writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to refund Rs.2,91,550/- remitted on 30.03.2019 as EMD for participating in the auction for the very same Kuthaka right for the year 2019-20, with 12% interest per annum from 18.03.2022. That writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 01.09.2022. In the said decision, this Court held that the petitioner, who has defaulted payment of balance bid amount for the year 2021-22 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/- together with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 01.10.2020, who has also defaulted payment of balance bid amount for the year 2022-23 is not entitled for refund of a sum of Rs.2,91,550/- deposited as earnest money deposit in respect of the kuthaka right for the year 2019-20. The said amount has to be adjusted towards his liability for the balance bid amount for the year 2021-22 and that for the year 2022-23. The defaulted amount for 2021-22 has to be recovered from the petitioner together with 18% penal interest from 01.10.2020 and defaulted amount for the year 2022-23 has to be recovered from him together with 18% penal interest from the respective due dates. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said decision read thus; “25. The defaulted amount for 2021-22 has to be recovered from the petitioner together with 18% penal interest from 01.10.2020 and defaulted amount for the year 2022-23 has to be recovered from him together with 18% penal interest from the respective due dates. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said decision read thus; “25. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner is not entitled for waiver of payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.1,75,000/- in respect of kuthaka right for selling flower garlands in Chettikulangara Devi Temple for the year 2021-22. As per the terms of the tender conditions the said amount towards balance bid amount ought to have been paid on or before 30.09.2020. Therefore, the petitioner, who has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount, is liable for payment of the said amount together with 18% penal interest from 01.10.2020. Despite the fact that the petitioner has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount for the year 2021-22, the 1st respondent Board and its officials have not taken any steps to recover the balance bid amount together with penal interest from the petitioner, by initiating appropriate coercive steps. Instead, he was permitted to continue as kuthaka holder for the year 2021-22. He was even granted kuthaka right to sell flower garlands in Chettikulangara Devi Temple for the year 2022-23, by negotiation, for an amount of Rs.16,97,000/-. As can be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, for the year 2021-22 the petitioner auctioned the said kuthaka right for an amount of Rs.18,22,300/. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that the petitioner has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount for the year 2022-23. 26. In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no merits in various contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner, who has defaulted payment of balance bid amount for the year 2021-22 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/- together with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 01.10.2020, who has also defaulted payment of balance bid amount for the year 2022-23 is not entitled for refund of a sum of Rs.2,91,550/- deposited as earnest money deposit in respect of the kuthaka right for the year 2019-20. The said amount has to be adjusted towards his liability for the balance bid amount for the year 2021-22 and that for the year 2022-23. The defaulted amount for 2021-22 has to be recovered from the petitioner together with 18% penal interest from 01.10.2020 and defaulted amount for the year 2022-23 has to be recovered from him together with 18% penal interest from the respective due dates. It is for the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps in this regard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner has not chosen to make payment towards the balance bid amount for the year 2022-23 together with penal interest at the rate of 18% from the respective due dates, the 1st respondent Board through the competent officer shall initiate steps against the petitioner for terminating the contract and proceedings shall also be initiated against him for blacklisting, in accordance with the tender conditions. The 1st respondent Board shall conduct an enquiry through the concerned Deputy Commissioner as to the circumstances in which the kuthaka right for selling flower garlands in Chettikulangara Devi Temple for the year 2022-23 was awarded to the petitioner, by negotiation, for an amount of Rs.16,97,000/-, as against the auction amount of Rs.18,22,300/-, for the previous year 2021-22, during which period the petitioner was the successful bidder. Based on the report of the enquiry, the 1st respondent Board shall take necessary action against those who were responsible for the loss caused to the Board and steps shall be taken to recover the said amount. The exercise in this regard shall be completed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.” 26. The judgment of this Court dated 01.09.2022 in W.P.(C)No.16243 of 2022 was under challenge before the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.232 of 2023, which ended in dismissal by the order dated 20.01.2023. 27. Therefore, the petitioner, who has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount for the Kuthaka right of sale of pooja items in Chettikulangara Devi Temple, for the year 2021-22, cannot seek permission to pay the balance bid amount, after deducting the EMD in respect of Kuthaka right for the year 2019-20, with 18% interest, as sought for in this writ petition. We notice that the petitioner Kuthaka holder in W.P.(C)No.16243 of 2022 was also represented by Adv.Sri. B.Rejithkumar, who is also the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition. W.P.(C)No.16423 of 2022 was disposed of on 01.09.2022. SLP(C)No.232 of 2023 filed against that judgment ended in dismissal by the order of the Apex Court dated 20.01.2023. It is thereafter that the petitioner, through the very same counsel filed the present writ petition, on 22.02.2023. This writ petition, is nothing but an abuse of process of Court, is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinbefore. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. It is for respondents 2 to 4 to take necessary steps to recover the balance bid amount due from the petitioner, together with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective due dates. Once, notification under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act is issued by the State of Kerala, pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 13.12.2022 in DBP No.64 of 2022, the Board shall recover the dues by initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner Kuthaka holder and other defaulters. The 2nd respondent Board shall consider the question as to whether any proceedings will have to be initiated against the petitioner Kuthaka holder for blacklisting, in accordance with the tender conditions. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.