JUDGMENT : [Anil K. Narendran, J.] 1. SSCR No.29 of 2022:- This report filed by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, in terms of the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 16.12.2022 in SSCR No.23 of 2022 and connected cases, relates to the parking facility for Sabarimala pilgrims at the Nilakkal Base Camp. The 9th respondent is the Kuthaka holder for collecting parking fee in the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp, for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). 1.1. On 17.12.2022, when this report came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for respondents 1, 4 to 8 and the additional 10th respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board entered appearance for respondents 2 and 3. Notice was ordered to the 9th respondent-contractor, through the additional 10th respondent Station House Officer or through the concerned Station House Officer at his place of residence. 1.2. On 19.12.2022, when this SSCR came up for consideration at 10.15 a.m., the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the 9th respondent-contractor has engaged 46 employees for regulating the parking of vehicles in 16 parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp. The learned counsel, who entered appearance for the 9th respondent-contractor, sought time to get instructions and therefore, the matter was ordered to be listed at 3.30 p.m. When the matter was taken up again at 3.30 p.m., the 5th respondent-District Police Chief filed a statement, stating that a meeting was convened on 16.12.2022 with the Special Officer/ Assistant Engineer, Nilakkal and also the 9th respondent-contractor, regarding the expansion of the parking capacity. The parking grounds were visited and it was noticed that some areas require compaction, laying of quarry waste, clearing of grass, etc. Action was taken to clear the ground neighbouring to Ground No.5 and it was designated as Ground No.5A, which has the capacity to hold 80-100 light motor vehicles. The Special Officer/Assistant Engineer, Nilakkal was directed to ensure sufficient lighting in the parking areas, where expansion has taken place. Some of the parking grounds covered with mud and sludge are being restored by soil compaction to enhance the holding capacity. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that there are no issues in the parking grounds at Nilakkal. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that steps are being taken to provide parking space for additional 600 vehicles. Some of the parking grounds covered with mud and sludge are being restored by soil compaction to enhance the holding capacity. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that there are no issues in the parking grounds at Nilakkal. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that steps are being taken to provide parking space for additional 600 vehicles. By the order dated 19.12.2022, this Court directed the Board and its officials to ensure that the works undertaken for providing additional parking space in the parking grounds at Nilakkal are completed on a war footing. 1.3. The 9th respondent-contractor has filed an affidavit dated 20.12.2022, producing therewith Annexure R9(a) photographs of the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp. On 22.12.2022, when this matter came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned Amicus Curiae for the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala submitted that there are no issues in the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp. The learned Standing Counsel sought time to get instructions as to whether there is periodical cleaning in the parking grounds at Nilakkal, to remove plastic cans, flower garlands, etc. By the order dated 22.12.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court, a copy of the contract entered into between the Board and the 9th respondent-contractor, for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). 1.4. On 23.12.2022, when this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of the contract dated 10.11.2022, entered into between the Board and the 9th respondent-contractor, which provides for various obligations of the contractor to ensure proper parking facility to Sabarimala pilgrims for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). The learned Standing Counsel has also made available for the perusal of this Court a report dated 20.12.2022 of the Executive Officer, Sabarimala Devaswom, which is addressed to the Special Officer, Nilakkal, wherein it was pointed out that the 9th respondent-contractor has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.1,29,38,888/- in two equal installments, payable on 30.11.2022 and 15.12.2022 respectively. As on 20.12.2022, the total dues together with penal interest come to Rs.1,32,63,066/-. The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the 9th respondent-contractor paid the first instalment of Rs.1,29,38,889/- in four instalments. As on 20.12.2022, the total dues together with penal interest come to Rs.1,32,63,066/-. The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the 9th respondent-contractor paid the first instalment of Rs.1,29,38,889/- in four instalments. When the matter was taken up again at 4.00 p.m., the Executive Officer, Sabarimala Devaswom, was suo motu impleaded as the additional 11th respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for the additional 11th respondent. By the order dated 23.12.2022, the additional 11th respondent was directed to file an affidavit, within one week, explaining the facts and circumstances, with specific reference to the default committed by the 9th respondent-contractor, who is the Kuthaka holder for collection of parking fee in the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp. 1.5. On 03.01.2013, the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit in the SSCR, producing therewith Annexure R2(a) to R2(g) documents. 2. W.P.(C)No.42987 of 2022:- During the pendency of SSCR No.29 of 2022, the additional 9th respondent-contractor filed this writ petition before the Vacation Bench on 29.12.2022, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 [sic: Ext.P9] notice dated 28.12.2022 issued by the 4th respondent-Administrative Officer, Nilakkal, calling upon him to pay the defaulted installments in respect of the Kuthaka right of collection of parking fee in the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp, for the year 1198 ME (2022-23), within 24 hrs. from the date of receipt of a copy of said notice. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of prohibition [sic: writ of mandamus] commanding the respondents not to terminate Ext.P1 contract dated 10.11.2022 entered into with the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer, Sabarimala Devaswom, only on the ground of delay in payment of the balance licence fee [sic: balance bid amount]; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider Ext.P8 representation dated 24.12.2022 seeking extension of time for remitting the second installment, and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a time limit that may be specified by this Court. 2.1. On 30.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration before the Vacation Bench, the matter was ordered to be listed on 03.01.2023, along with SSCR No.29 of 2023. The time granted to the petitioner to make payment was extended by the Vacation Bench till then, i.e., 03.01.2023. 2.2. 2.1. On 30.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration before the Vacation Bench, the matter was ordered to be listed on 03.01.2023, along with SSCR No.29 of 2023. The time granted to the petitioner to make payment was extended by the Vacation Bench till then, i.e., 03.01.2023. 2.2. On 04.01.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was made clear that, since the time limit granted by the Vacation Bench on 30.12.2022 expired on 03.01.2023, the pendency of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the Travancore Devaswom Board in proceeding against the petitioner-contractor. 2.3. On 09.01.2023, when the writ petition came up for consideration along with SSCR, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that, since the petitioner-contractor defaulted payment of the balance bid amount, in spite of repeated notices, the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer reported the matter to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner for necessary action. In the order dated 09.01.2023, this Court noticed that the petitioner has not disclosed in the writ petition that he has not furnished a bank guarantee for the balance bid amount in terms of the tender conditions and Ext.P1 agreement dated 10.11.2022. Despite the specific condition stipulated in the tender conditions and Ext.P1 agreement dated 10.11.2022, no action has been taken by the Board against the petitioner for his default in furnishing bank guarantee for the balance bid amount and also his default in remitting the balance bid amount of Rs.1,29,38,888/-, payable in two equal installments on 30.11.2022 and 15.12.2022 respectively. 2.4. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner has filed an affidavit dated 10.01.2023, producing therewith Exts.R2(a) to R2(n) documents. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 13.01.2023. The 3rd respondent-Executive Officer has filed an affidavit dated 23.01.2023, producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(n). 2.5. In the counter affidavit dated 10.01.2023 filed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, it is stated that the right to collect parking fee from the vehicles parked at Nilakkal parking area (Sl. No.226) during 1198 ME, i.e., from 11.11.2022 to 31.12.2023, was auctioned to the petitioner-contractor, for an amount of Rs.2,58,77,777/- plus 18% GST, in the auction conducted on 12.10.2022. He remitted Rs.1,29,38,936/-towards the first installment (i.e., 50% of the auction amount) vide cheque dated 20.12.2022 for Rs.85,00,000/-, cheque dated 21.12.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/-, bank transfer on 19.10.2022 for Rs. 15,00,000/- and another bank transfer on 28.10.2022 for Rs.19,58,936/-. He remitted Rs.1,29,38,936/-towards the first installment (i.e., 50% of the auction amount) vide cheque dated 20.12.2022 for Rs.85,00,000/-, cheque dated 21.12.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/-, bank transfer on 19.10.2022 for Rs. 15,00,000/- and another bank transfer on 28.10.2022 for Rs.19,58,936/-. The remaining 50% of the auction amount has to be remitted in two installments of Rs.64,69,421/- and Rs.64,69,420/-, which became due on 30.11.2022 and 15.12.2022 respectively. In addition to this, the petitioner-contractor has to pay 1% TDS amounting to Rs.2,58,778/- to the Income Tax Department. In spite of repeated reminders, the contractor has not remitted the 2nd and 3rd installments and also TDS. The 3rd respondent-Executive Officer issued Ext.R2(a) reminder on 28.11.2022, requiring the contractor to remit the 2nd installment before 30.11.2022. Again Ext.R2(b) notice dated 10.12.2022 was issued to the contractor requiring him to pay the 2nd installment with interest up to 10.12.2022. The Executive Officer issued Ext.R2(c) communication dated 20.12.2022 to the Assistant Engineer/ Special Officer, Nilakkal to issue necessary notice to the contractor requiring him to pay the balance auction amount together with interest and to inform that on his failure to remit the said amount the contract will be terminated at his risk and cost. Based on Ext.R2(c), the Special Officer, Nilakkal issued Ext.R2(d) notice dated 23.12.2022, requiring the contractor to remit the balance auction amount together with interest. Thereafter, the Executive Officer, vide Ext.R2(e) communication dated 28.12.2022, directed the Administrative Officer, Nilakkal to issue notice to the contractor requiring him to pay the balance auction amount within 24 hours. Based on that direction the Administrative Officer, Nilakkal issued Ext.R2(f) communication dated 28.12.2022. On receipt of Ext.R2(f) notice, the contractor approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.42987 of 2022 and obtained an interim order granting time up to 03.01.2023 for remitting the balance auction amount. Since the time limit granted by the Vacation Bench in the order dated 30.12.2022 had expired, in the order dated 04.01.2023 this Court made it clear that the pendency of that writ petition will not stand in the way of the Board in proceeding against the contractor. Immediately the Executive Officer, vide Ext.R2(g) communication dated 05.01.2023, reported to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner that, since the contractor has not remitted the balance amount, alternative arrangements have to be made for collecting parking fee by the Department, and steps are to be taken for recovering the defaulted amount from the contractor. Immediately the Executive Officer, vide Ext.R2(g) communication dated 05.01.2023, reported to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner that, since the contractor has not remitted the balance amount, alternative arrangements have to be made for collecting parking fee by the Department, and steps are to be taken for recovering the defaulted amount from the contractor. On receipt of Ext.R2(g) communication, the Commissioner issued Ext.R2(h) notice dated 07.01.2023, requiring the contractor to remit the balance bid amount within three days, failing which alternative arrangements for collecting parking fee will be made by the Department, at his risk and cost. Since the contractor failed to remit the balance amount within the time limit prescribed in Ext.R2(h) notice, he was issued with Ext.R2(i) order dated 09.01.2023 of the Commissioner, terminating the contract, whereby he is required to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the Commissioner issued Ext.R2(j) communication dated 09.01.2023 to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Security), Ext.R2(k) communication dated 09.01.2023 to the Chief Engineer and Ext.R2(l) communication dated 09.01.2023 to the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer. By Ext.R2(m) communication dated 09.01.2023, the Commissioner sought for an explanation from the Executive Officer on his failure to obtain a bank guarantee from the contractor for the balance bid amount, in terms of Ext.P1 agreement. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner, it is alleged that only because of the lapse on the part of the contractor in deploying sufficient staff to regulate the parking of vehicles in the parking area, the full space could not be utilised for more than one month. Therefore, the contractor was issued with Ext.R2(n) notice dated 11.12.2022 by the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer. Even after the issuance of Ext.R2(n), the contractor arranged only 47 workers. In such circumstances, proper parking was arranged with the assistance of the Devaswom employees and the Police. The 3rd respondent-Executive Officer has also filed a counter affidavit dated 23.01.2023 raising similar contentions. 2.6. The petitioner-contractor has filed an affidavit dated 13.01.2023 wherein it is stated that as per clause 3 of Ext. P1 agreement he was obliged to furnish bank guarantee for the balance bid amount payable to the Travancore Devaswom Board. He was prepared to furnish bank guarantee, as provided under clause 3. To his knowledge, the Board has not insisted production of bank guarantee in the case of any contractors. The said clause was only a formal one. P1 agreement he was obliged to furnish bank guarantee for the balance bid amount payable to the Travancore Devaswom Board. He was prepared to furnish bank guarantee, as provided under clause 3. To his knowledge, the Board has not insisted production of bank guarantee in the case of any contractors. The said clause was only a formal one. The Board has permitted him to execute the work without insisting bank guarantee. As per clause 5 of Ext.P1 agreement, the Board is entitled to levy interest at the rate of 18% from the last date on which the instalment fell due. He was ready and willing to pay the amount due to the Board, with that rate of interest, within a reasonable period. He has raised the first instalment of the bid amount by borrowing money from his friends and relatives. He had promised them to repay it immediately after starting the work, utilising daily collections. Since the collections in the first month of the pilgrim season were very low, he could not make sufficient balance to pay the second and third instalments, within the stipulated time. If he was permitted to remit the balance amount in instalments, he could have paid it with interest before the pilgrim season ends. Now his loss is more than Rs.50 Lakhs and he is ready to furnish a detailed statement of his income and expenditure in respect of Ext.P1 agreement. His failure to mention clause 3 of Ext.P1 agreement and the failure to furnish a bank guarantee in compliance with the said clause are not wilful. He was under the bona fide impression that those are not material facts to be pleaded in the writ petition, considering the nature of the relief sought for. Since Ext.P1 agreement has been terminated by the Board, the writ petition has become infructuous and it may be closed leaving open other legal remedies. 2.7. By the order dated 11.01.2023, State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department; the Chief Vigilance Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board, and the Joint Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit were impleaded suo motu as additional respondents 5 to 7 in this writ petition. The learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for additional respondents 5 and 7. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board entered appearance for the additional 6th respondent. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for additional respondents 5 and 7. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board entered appearance for the additional 6th respondent. 3. By the order dated 14.02.2023, the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau; and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta Unit were suo motu impleaded as additional respondents 12 and 13 in SSCR No.29 of 2022 and as additional respondents 8 and 9 in W.P.(C)No.42987 of 2022. 4. During the pendency of these matters, in terms of the directions contained in the order of this Court in DBP No.64 of 2022, the State of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, on being satisfied that it is necessary to do so in public interest, declared that the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act shall be applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any persons or class of persons to the Travancore Devaswom Board. The said notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.83/2023/RD dated 17.03.2023, has been published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1001 dated 18.03.2023. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.42987 of 2022, who is arrayed as the 9th respondent in SSCR No.29 of 2023, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State of Kerala and official respondents, including the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the Board and its officials and also the learned Amicus Curiae for the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. 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. The issue involved in this SSCR and writ petition relates to the parking facility for Sabarimala pilgrims at the Nilakkal Base Camp. The writ petitioner, who is arrayed as the 9th respondent in SSCR (hereinafter referred to as ‘the parking contractor’) is the Kuthaka holder for collecting parking fee in the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp, for the year 1198 ME (2022-23), for the period from 11.11.2022 till 31.10.2023, on the strength of Ext.P1 contract dated 10.11.2022. In the SSCR, this Court passed various orders to ensure proper parking facilities for Sabarimala pilgrims, during Mandala-Makaravilakku Festival season of 1198 ME (2022-23). 11. The parking contractor has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.64,69,421/- and Rs.64,69,420/-, payable on 30.11.2022 and 15.12.2022 respectively. As on 20.12.2022, the defaulted payments together with penal interest come to Rs.1,32,63,066/-. In addition to this, the parking contractor has to pay 1% TDS amounting to Rs.2,58,778/- to the Income Tax Department. The parking contractor paid the first instalment of the bid amount, amounting to Rs.1,29,38,889/- in four installments. 12. Clause 10 of the general conditions, which forms part of the tender notification dated 10.08.2022, in respect of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23), reads thus; “OTHER LANGUAGE” 13. As already noticed in the order dated 09.01.2023, the fact that the parking contractor has not disclosed in the writ petition that he has not furnished a bank guarantee for the balance bid amount in terms of the tender conditions and Ext.P1 agreement dated 10.11.2022 has not been disclosed in the writ petition. Despite the specific condition stipulated in the tender conditions and Ext.P1 agreement dated 10.11.2022, no action has been taken against the parking contractor for his default in furnishing a bank guarantee for the balance bid amount and also his default in remitting the balance bid amount of Rs.64,69,421/- and Rs.64,69,420/- payable on 30.11.2022 and 15.12.2022 respectively, together with penal interest. Despite the specific condition stipulated in the tender conditions and Ext.P1 agreement dated 10.11.2022, no action has been taken against the parking contractor for his default in furnishing a bank guarantee for the balance bid amount and also his default in remitting the balance bid amount of Rs.64,69,421/- and Rs.64,69,420/- payable on 30.11.2022 and 15.12.2022 respectively, together with penal interest. In the affidavit dated 13.01.2023 filed by the parking contractor, it is stated that the failure to mention clause 3 of Ext.P1 agreement and the failure to furnish a bank guarantee in compliance with the said clause are not wilful. He was under the bona fide impression that those are not material facts to be pleaded in the writ petition, considering the nature of the relief sought for. Since Ext.P1 agreement has already been terminated by the Board, the writ petition may be closed leaving open other legal remedies. 14. As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486], an applicant who does not come with candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the court with ‘soiled hands’. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 15. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppress relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. This rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 16. In Prestige Lights Limited [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 16. In Prestige Lights Limited [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter. 17. As already found in the order dated 09.01.2023, the conduct of the parking contractor in approaching this Court in a writ petition, without disclosing the fact that he has not furnished a bank guarantee for the balance bid amount in terms of the tender conditions and Ext.P1 agreement dated 10.11.2022 amounts to suppression of material facts from the notice of this Court, in order to secure an interim order, which has to be dealt with appropriately. The said default committed by the parking contractor was also not brought to the notice of this Court by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner or the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer. The conduct of respondents 2 and 3 in this regard has also to be dealt with appropriately since it amounts to suppression of material facts. 18. In Usha Nanthini v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad [ 2018 (2) KHC 89 ], a decision rendered by one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.], it was held that, once it is found that the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by suppressing material facts and making false statements, such an attempt made by the petitioner to abuse the process of this Court has to be dealt with appropriately. In such cases, this Court has ample power to decline the permission sought for withdrawal of the writ petition. Dismissal of such writ petitions imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, in order to prevent abuse of process of this Court and to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. In such cases, this Court has ample power to decline the permission sought for withdrawal of the writ petition. Dismissal of such writ petitions imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, in order to prevent abuse of process of this Court and to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. The law laid down in Usha Nanthini [ 2018 (2) KHC 89 ] has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 21.02.2018 in W.A.No.455 of 2018. See: Usha Nanthini v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad [2018/KER/8915]. 19. In the order dated 09.01.2023, this Court recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that the 2nd respondent-Commissioner will take necessary action against the parking contractor on 09.01.2023 itself. On 10.1.2023, when the writ petition came up for consideration along with SSCR, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the Board started collecting parking fee in the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp directly since the Kuthaka right of the parking contractor has already been terminated. 20. On 11.01.2023, when the writ petition came up for consideration along with SSCR, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court an affidavit sworn to by the parking contractor in a stamp paper worth Rs.100/-, which was produced along with the tender documents for the supply of 15,000kg of cardamom at Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). He was not awarded the said contract. The parking contractor has submitted his Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and also 2021-22. As per the Income Tax Returns, his gross total income for the assessment year 2019-20 is only Rs.1,14,802/- and that for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22 are only Rs.1,07,115/- and Rs.1,11,250/- respectively. The account number mentioned in the requisition for e-payment is 67303560462 in the Sasthamcottah Branch of State Bank of India. The learned Standing Counsel has made available for the perusal of this Court the general conditions, which form part of the tender notification dated 10.08.2022 in respect of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). The petitioner-parking contractor has not furnished a bank guarantee for the balance bid amount in terms of clause 3 of Ext.P1 agreement dated 10.11.2022 and clause 10 of the general conditions, which forms part of the tender notification dated 10.08.2022. The petitioner-parking contractor has not furnished a bank guarantee for the balance bid amount in terms of clause 3 of Ext.P1 agreement dated 10.11.2022 and clause 10 of the general conditions, which forms part of the tender notification dated 10.08.2022. On a query made by this Court on 11.01.2023, the learned counsel for the parking contractor submitted that the contractor owns approximately 5 cents of property at Sooranadu along with a residential building. The learned counsel sought time to get instructions as to whether the parking contractor owns any other landed property. 21. In the order dated 11.01.2023, this Court noticed that, when the 2nd respondent-Commissioner was aware of the financial condition of the parking contractor from the documents submitted by him along with the tender, the circumstances in which he was awarded a contract for more than Rs.2 Crore, even without insisting on bank guarantee for the balance bid amount, requires detailed consideration by this Court. The petitioner-parking contractor, whose declared annual income for the assessment year 2021-22 was only Rs.1,11,250/-, has remitted 50% of the total bid amount of Rs.2,58,77,777/-. He has also participated in the auction for the supply of 15,000kg of cardamom in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). 22. As already noticed in the order dated 01.02.2023, in the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, no explanation is offered for awarding Kuthaka right to the petitioner-parking contractor, without insisting on bank guarantee for the balance bid amount in terms of Clause 3 of Ext.P1 agreement and clause 10 of the general conditions, which forms part of the tender notification dated 10.08.2022, in respect of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). 23. By the order dated 01.02.2023, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner was directed to file an additional affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the petitioner-parking contractor, whose average gross annual income for the last three assessment years was around Rs.1 Lakh, was awarded Kuthaka right, without insisting bank guarantee for the balance amount of more than Rs.1.20 Crore. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner was also directed to furnish the details of Kuthaka holders of the year 1198 M.E., in respect of Sabarimala Devaswom, who have been awarded Kuthaka right without insisting on bank guarantee for the balance bid amount. 24. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner has not chosen to file an affidavit in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 01.02.2023 in the writ petition. 24. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner has not chosen to file an affidavit in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 01.02.2023 in the writ petition. During the course of arguments, on a specific query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that no bank guarantee was insisted in terms of Clause 3 of the agreement and clause 10 of the general conditions, which forms part of the tender notification dated 10.08.2022, in respect of any Kuthaka holder in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). 25. 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. 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. 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) 26. 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. Para-graph 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 him-self 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. 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 con-duct 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 per-son 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 ac-count 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 can-not be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and sub-stance, indirectly benefit 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 can-not be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and sub-stance, 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) 27. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [ 2013 (3) KLT 132 ] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] 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 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, therefore, is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957, viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 28. 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. 28. 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. 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. 29. In Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [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. 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. 30. 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, was dealing with the auction conducted for the Kuthaka item No.119 (maintenance of Pamba toilet block) in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1197 ME (2021-22). By the judgment dated 13.10.2022, W.P.(C) Nos.29772 of 2021 and 29859 of 2021 were disposed of by directing the Chief Vigilance Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct a detailed enquiry, with notice to the writ petitioners and also the party respondents, on the e-tender process for Kuthaka items in Sabarimala Devaswom, for the year 1197 ME, with specific reference to item No.119 (maintenance of Pamba toilet block), after the Mandala-Makaravilakku Season of 1198 ME is over. The report of the Chief Vigilance Officer was directed to be placed before the Travancore Devaswom Board, by the first week of March, 2023. The decision taken by the Board, based on the enquiry report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, was directed to be placed before this Court, along with the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. 31. The report of the Chief Vigilance Officer was directed to be placed before the Travancore Devaswom Board, by the first week of March, 2023. The decision taken by the Board, based on the enquiry report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, was directed to be placed before this Court, along with the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. 31. In Sunil Kumar P.G. [2022/KER/71822] this Court ordered that 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 33. In the instant case, as already noticed hereinbefore, as per the Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 submitted by the parking contractor [petitioner in W.P.(C)No.42987 of 2022, who is the 9th respondent in SSCR No.29 of 2022] his gross total income for the assessment year 2019-20 is only Rs.1,14,802/- and that for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22 are only Rs.1,07,115/- and Rs.1,11,250/- respectively. On 11.01.2023, on a query made by this Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the parking contractor was that the parking contractor owns approximately 5 cents of property at Sooranadu along with a residential building. Though the learned counsel sought time to get instructions as to whether the contractor owns any other landed property, the affidavit filed sworn to the contractor on 13.01.2023 is silent on the above aspect. Such a person has also participated in another tender process in Sabarimala Devaswom for the supply of 15,000kg of cardamom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). 34. In the matter of Audit Report of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the year 1967-68 (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. 35. Despite the directions contained in the decisions of this Court in Abu K.S. [2022/KER/6409], Suneesh K.S. [ILR (2022) 1 Ker 1091] and Sunil Kumar P.G. [2022/KER/71822] the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business who conduct his own affairs, in matters relating to the auctioning of Kuthaka rights at Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). 36. 36. The Board and its officials, namely, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer were aware of the financial condition of the parking contractor from the tender documents submitted by him. In the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner or the 3rd respondent-Executive officer, they could not offer any explanation for awarding a contract for more than Rs.2 Crore to such a person, even without insisting bank guarantee for the balance bid amount. Contrary to the general conditions, which forms part of the tender notification dated 10.08.2022, in respect of Kuthaka items in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23), the parking contractor was permitted to pay 50% bid amount in installments. 37. Though the parking contractor has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.64,69,421/- payable on 30.11.2022 and Rs.64,69,420/- payable on 15.12.2022 and also payment of 1% TDS amounting to Rs.2,58,778/- to the Income Tax Department, the Board and its officials, namely, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer have permitted him to collect parking fee from the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp. The default committed by the parking contractor was brought to the notice of this Court only on 23.12.2022, by handing over a copy of Ext.R2(c) communication dated 20.12.2022 of the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer, addressed to the Special Officer, Nilakkal. If, as a matter of fact, the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer has issued Ext.R2(a) reminder dated 28.11.2022 and Ext.R2(b) notice dated 10.12.2022 to the parking contractor, requiring him to remit the defaulted installment payable on 30.11.2022, it could have been brought to the notice of this Court on 19.12.2022, 20.12.2022 or 22.12.2022, when this Court passed various orders in SSCR No.29 of 2022. The fact that the parking contractor has not furnished a bank guarantee in terms of clause 10 of the general conditions, which forms part of the tender notification dated 10.08.2022, and clause 3 of Ext.P1 agreement was also not brought to the notice of this Court. 38. The averments in the affidavit dated 13.01.2023 of the parking contractor would make it explicitly clear that his intention was to remit the balance bid amount payable on 30.11.2022 and 15.12.2022 in installments, by the end of the pilgrim season, utilising the daily collection from the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp. 38. The averments in the affidavit dated 13.01.2023 of the parking contractor would make it explicitly clear that his intention was to remit the balance bid amount payable on 30.11.2022 and 15.12.2022 in installments, by the end of the pilgrim season, utilising the daily collection from the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp. When the defaults committed by the parking contractor in payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.64,69,421/- payable on 30.11.2022 and Rs.64,69,420/-payable on 15.12.2022 and also payment of 1% TDS amounting to Rs.2,58,778/- to the Income Tax Department are not in dispute and the inability of the parking contractor to pay the said amounts together with penal interest stands admitted in the affidavit dated 13.01.2023, he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inda, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials not to terminate Ext.P1 contract dated 10.11.2022 entered into with the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer, Sabarimala Devaswom, only on the ground of delay in payment of the balance bid amount. For the aforesaid reason, the parking contractor cannot raise a valid challenge against the termination of Ext.P1 contract dated 10.11.2022. Once it is found that the parking contractor has approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.42987 of 2022, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court, such an attempt made by the petitioner to abuse the process of this Court has to be dealt with appropriately, by dismissing the said writ petition. Hence, W.P.(C)No.42987 of 2022 filed by the petitioner-parking contractor is liable to be dismissed on the above ground. 39. It is for the Travancore Devaswom Board to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner-parking contractor, in accordance with law, for the recovery of the defaulted payments and other amounts due to the Board, in respect of Ext.P1 contract dated 10.11.2022, taking note of the notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.83/2023/RD dated 17.03.2023 (Published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1001 dated 18.03.2023), whereby the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are made applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any persons or class of persons to the Travancore Devaswom Board. The action taken against the petitioner-parking contractor shall be brought to the notice of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, who shall bring it to the notice of this Court by filing a fresh report. The action taken against the petitioner-parking contractor shall be brought to the notice of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, who shall bring it to the notice of this Court by filing a fresh report. A copy of this order/judgment shall be enclosed along with the said report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. 40. 'Deva' means God and 'Swom' means Ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. See: Prayar Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala reported in [ 2018 (1) KLT 478 ]. As already noticed hereinbefore, 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 Board and its officials have a duty to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the Devaswoms. The Board and its officials should always be vigilant in protecting the interest and properties of the Devaswoms and they have to protect the same from any wrongful claims or misappropriation. Any wrongful claim or misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the Board and its officials are cases of ‘fence eating the crops’, which should be dealt with sternly. 41. As already noticed hereinbefore, despite the directions contained in the decisions of this Court in Abu K.S. [2022/KER/6409], Suneesh K.S. [ILR (2022) 1 Ker 1091] and Sunil Kumar P.G. [2022/KER/71822] the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials, namely, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer, have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business who conduct his own affairs, in matters relating to the auctioning of Kuthaka rights at Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). Though the Board and its officials were aware of the financial condition of the parking contractor from the tender documents submitted by him, he was awarded with a contract for more than Rs.2 Crore in Sabarimala Devaswom, even without insisting bank guarantee for the balance bid amount. In the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner or the 3rd respondent-Executive officer, they could not offer any explanation for awarding a contract for more than Rs.2 Crore to such a person, even without insisting bank guarantee for the balance bid amount. In the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner or the 3rd respondent-Executive officer, they could not offer any explanation for awarding a contract for more than Rs.2 Crore to such a person, even without insisting bank guarantee for the balance bid amount. The parking contractor, who has defaulted payment of the balance bid amount of Rs.64,69,421/- payable on 30.11.2022 and Rs.64,69,420/- payable on 15.12.2022 and also payment of 1% TDS amounting to Rs.2,58,778/- to the Income Tax Department was permitted to collect parking fee from the parking grounds at Nilakkal Base Camp. Such a person has also participated in another tender process in Sabarimala Devaswom for the supply of 15,000kg of cardamom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). 42. During the course of arguments, on a specific query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, on instructions, would submit that no bank guarantee was insisted for the balance bid amount, in terms of clause 3 of the respective agreements and clause 10 of the general conditions, which forms part of the tender notification dated 10.08.2022, in respect of any Kuthaka holder in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). However, the said fact is suppressed in the counter affidavit dated 10.01.2023 of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and that dated 23.01.2023 of the 3rd respondent- Executive Officer, which would amount to suppression of material facts from the notice of this Court. It is not discernible from the pleadings and materials on record, whether the Board has taken any decision not to insist on bank guarantee for the balance bid amount in respect of Kuthaka holders in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). 43. As emphasised by the Apex Court in the decision in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. Relying on the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Mohanan Nair [ 2013 (3) KLT 132 ] held that the High Court, therefore, is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. 44. 44. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the considered opinion that a thorough enquiry by a team constituted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau is absolutely essential on the conduct of each and every person connected with the auction conducted by the Travancore Devaswom Board, in terms the tender notification dated 10.08.2022, of the Kuthaka rights in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23). Therefore, the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, who is the additional 12th respondent in SSCR No.29 of 2022 (the additional 8th respondent in W.P.(C)No.42987 of 2022) is directed to constitute a team headed by the Superintendent of Police to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the whole matter relating to the auction conducted by the Travancore Devaswom Board, in terms the tender notification dated 10.08.2022, of the Kuthaka rights in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1198 ME (2022-23), to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If at any stage, during the enquiry, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a public servant has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, further proceedings shall be taken in accordance with law. 45. The Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials are directed to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in the decisions of this Court in Abu K.S. [2022/KER/6409], Suneesh K.S. [ILR (2022) 1 Ker 1091] and Sunil Kumar P.G. [2022/KER/71822] while conducting the auction of Kuthaka rights in Sabarimala Devaswom. Recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the defaulters, in terms of the notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.83/2023/RD dated 17.03.2023 (Published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1001 dated 18.03.2023), whereby the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are made applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any persons or class of persons to the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the result, W.P.(C)No.42987 of 2022 is dismissed for the reasons stated hereinbefore at paragraph 38; however subject to the directions contained in paragraph 39; and SSCR No.29 of 2022 is disposed of with the directions contained hereinbefore at paragraphs 44 and 45.