JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner participated in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notice dated 01.07.2023 issued by the Deputy Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, for the kuthaka right of selling coconuts to the devotees and collecting broken coconuts from Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple and Sastha Temple for the period from 01.11.2023 to 31.10.2024. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inda, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 re-tender notification dated 07.08.2023 issued by the Deputy Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom as per which the tenders received up to 3.00 p.m. on 25.08.2023 will be opened at 3.00 p.m. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to finalise the process of tender pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 01.07.2023 and confirm the tender in his favour; and a declaration that Ext.P5 re-tender notification dated 07.08.2023 is bad, insofar as it does not give any reason for invalidating the tender process initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. 2. On 21.08.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Guruvayur Devaswom Audit, was suo motu impleaded as the additional 5th respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent State and the additional 5th respondent Deputy Director and the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee for respondents 2 to 4. 4. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P5 re-tender notification dated 07.08.2023 issued by the Deputy Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom in respect of the kuthaka right of selling coconuts to the devotees and collecting broken coconuts from Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple and Sastha Temple for the period from 01.11.2023 to 31.10.2024. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, instead of issuing Ext.P5 re-tender notification, the 2nd respondent Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee should have accepted the bid of the petitioner for Rs.69,66,666/-, which was the 2nd highest bid, when one Anil Kumar, the highest bidder in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification, who quoted Rs.71,01,001/-, failed to submit identification details like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, affidavit as well as preliminary agreement, in time. In addition to Anilkumar and the petitioner, two others quoted Rs.62,36,000/- and Rs.57,26,349/- respectively in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, on instructions, would submit that the tender submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification was not supported by a demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, towards the EMD. Instead, the petitioner produced a fixed deposit receipt in his name, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Since Anil Kumar, the highest bidder, failed to submit identification details like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, affidavit as well as preliminary agreement, in time, the Managing Committee decided to issue Ext.P5 re-tender notification. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner is the successful bidder for the kuthaka item Thulabharam vazhipadu in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple. In that tender process, instead of a demand draft in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, the petitioner submitted a fixed deposit receipt in his name, towards the EMD, which was accepted by the Managing Committee. 8. The specific condition stipulated in Ext.P1 tender notification dated 01.07.2023 and Ext.P5 re-tender notification dated 07.08.2023 is that the tender/bid submitted for the kuthaka right of selling coconuts to the devotees and collecting broken coconuts from Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple and Sastha Temple for the period from 01.11.2023 to 31.10.2024 shall contain a demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, towards the EMD. Ext.P1 tender notification and Ext.P5 re-tender notification it is made clear that tenders/bids without the EMD shall not be accepted. A preliminary agreement prepared and signed on a stamp paper worth Rs.200/-, signed by the bidder shall also be enclosed along with the tender/bid. Ext.P1 tender notification and Ext.P5 re-tender notification it is made clear that tenders/bids without the EMD shall not be accepted. A preliminary agreement prepared and signed on a stamp paper worth Rs.200/-, signed by the bidder shall also be enclosed along with the tender/bid. An affidavit sworn to by the bidder, as per the requirements in the tender notification, copy of the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card of the bidder shall also be submitted along with the tender/bid. 9. From the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, on instructions, we notice that the tender/bid submitted by Anil Kumar, the highest bidder in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification, who quoted Rs.71,01,001/-, failed to enclose along with his tender/bid, a preliminary agreement prepared and signed on a stamp paper worth Rs.200/-, an affidavit sworn to by the bidder, as per the requirements in the tender notification, copy of the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card. Such a person was permitted to participate in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification. Similarly, the petitioner, who failed to submit along with his tender/bid, a demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, towards the EMD, was also permitted to participate in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification. 10. From the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, we notice that, in the tender process for the kuthaka item Thulabharam vazhipadu in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple, the petitioner submitted a fixed deposit receipt in his name, towards the EMD, instead of a demand draft in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, which was accepted by the Managing Committee, in violation of the tender conditions. 11. In tender matters, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [ (1999) 1 SCC 492 ] is that the grant of judicial relief at the instance of a party who does not fulfil the requisite criteria is something which could be termed as misplaced. 12. In Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 671 : 2023 (4) KHC SN 20] the Apex Court quoted with approval paragraph 27 of the decision in Raunaq International Ltd. [ (1999) 1 SCC 492 ]. 13. 12. In Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 671 : 2023 (4) KHC SN 20] the Apex Court quoted with approval paragraph 27 of the decision in Raunaq International Ltd. [ (1999) 1 SCC 492 ]. 13. In Tata Motors Limited [2023 (4) KHC SN 20] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the High Court upheld the disqualification of TATA Motors and rejected their claim for being considered as an eligible bidder, as they failed to comply with the technical requirements of the tender. The High Court, after holding as above, proceeded further to discuss why the bid of EVEY Trans Private Limited (EVEY) also should have been rejected. After rejecting the contention of EVEY that Annexure Y submitted along with the technical bid was an incidental document, the High Court thought fit to declare EVEY also as an unsuccessful bidder. 14. In Tata Motors Limited [2023 (4) KHC SN 20], relying on the decision in Raunaq International Ltd. [ (1999) 1 SCC 492 ], the learned Senior Counsel for EVEY contended that, once the High Court found TATA Motors to be technically non-compliant, it ought not to have entertained a challenge to the tendering process at the instance of an unsuccessful party. After considering the rival contentions, the Apex Court held that the High Court having once declared TATA Motors as ‘non-responsive’ and having stood disqualified from the tender process should not have entered into the fray of investigating into the decision of Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) to declare EVEY as the eligible bidder. The High Court was not exercising its writ jurisdiction in the public interest. The petition before the High Court was one filed by a party trying to assert its own rights. As held in Raunaq International Ltd. [ (1999) 1 SCC 492 ] the grant of judicial relief at the instance of a party that does not fulfil the requisite criteria is something which could be termed as misplaced. 15. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner failed to submit along with his tender/bid, a demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, towards the EMD. 15. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner failed to submit along with his tender/bid, a demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, towards the EMD. The petitioner, who failed to fulfil the requisite criteria in Ext.P1 tender notification, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assert his own rights. Since any judicial relief at the instance of a party who failed to fulfil the requisite criteria is legally impermissible, the challenge made in this writ petition against the decision taken by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to issue Ext.P5 re-tender notification for the kuthaka right of selling coconuts to the devotees and collecting broken coconuts from Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple and Sastha Temple, for the period from 01.11.2023 to 31.10.2024, fails on the above ground. 16. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 is legally bound to administer, control and manage all the properties belonging to Guruvayur Devaswom in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The legal status of the Managing Committee is that of a trustee in management of the Devaswom properties and the Committee is duty bound to scrupulously follow the stipulations contained in the Act of 1978. Unless a contrary intention, either expressly or by necessary implication, arises from the provisions of the statute in any particular subject or context, the Managing Committee is legally bound to administer and manage the Devaswom and its properties in accordance with the settled legal principles relating to the administration of Hindu Religious Trusts. The Managing Committee, being the trustee in management of Devaswom properties, is legally bound to perform its duties with utmost care and caution. 17. The facts stated hereinbefore at paragraphs 6 and 7 would make it explicitly clear that persons who failed to submit identification details like Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, affidavit, preliminary agreement and demand draft for the required amount in favour of the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom towards the EMD were permitted to participate in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification. The petitioner, who failed to produce the demand draft of the required sum towards the EMD, was permitted to participate in the tender process for the Kuthaka item Thulabharam vazhipadu. Instead of a demand draft for the required sum, the petitioner submitted a fixed deposit receipt in his name, towards the EMD. 18. The petitioner, who failed to produce the demand draft of the required sum towards the EMD, was permitted to participate in the tender process for the Kuthaka item Thulabharam vazhipadu. Instead of a demand draft for the required sum, the petitioner submitted a fixed deposit receipt in his name, towards the EMD. 18. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we prima facie find that the Managing Committee and the Administrator of Guruvayur Devaswom, who are legally bound to perform their duties with utmost care and caution, have not taken proper care and caution while dealing with the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification and that in respect of the Kuthaka right Thulabharam vazhipadu. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the 5th respondent Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Guruvayur Devaswom to submit a detailed report before this Court, after verifying the records relating to Ext.P1 tender notification, the Kuthaka item Thulabharam vazhipadu and also similar Kuthaka items tendered during the years 2022-23 and 2023-24, which shall be numbered as DBAR and listed before the Devaswom Bench, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the result, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, however subject to the direction contained hereinbefore.