JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The issue raised in these writ petitions relates to the process pursuant to a notification dated 07.11.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer, Sabarimala, regarding open tender for certain Kuthaka items in Sabarimala Devaswom, during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1199 ME (2023-24), for the period from 11.11.2023 to 31.10.2024. The petitioner participated in the open tender conducted on 14.11.2023, for Kuthaka items 5 and 31 in Ext.P1 list of Kuthaka items. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the list of Kuthaka items, which forms part of the tender notification and Ext.P2 is the general and special conditions, which forms part of that tender notification. 2. The petitioner is the second highest bidder in respect of Kuthaka item 5, namely, Gold/Silver offering stall near the Nadapanthal at Sabarimala Sannidhanam. He is also the second highest bidder in respect of Kuthaka item 31, two shop rooms at Malikappuram. The highest bidder in those Kuthaka items is one Jayadeep Sasidharan, the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)Nos.38290 of 2023 and 38495 of 2023. In W.P.(C)No.38290 of 2023, the petitioner is seeking relief in respect of Kuthaka item 5 and in W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023, he is seeking relief in respect of Kuthaka item 31. The common reliefs sought for in the writ petitions are a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent-Travancore Devaswom Board, to confirm the petitioner as the highest bidder in respect of Kuthaka items 5 and 31, after offering him the very same time period offered to the 5th respondent for remitting the bid amount or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Board to re-tender Kuthaka items 5 and 31 in Ext.P1 list, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The case of the petitioner is that the remittance made by the 5th respondent towards the bid amount in Kuthaka items 5 and 31 was beyond the time limit specified in Ext.P2 general and special conditions, which forms part of the tender notification dated 07.11.2023. The 5th respondent, who did not have the required amount with him on 14.11.2023 or even within the extended time limit on 15.11.2023, was permitted to remit the bid amount in violation of clause 4 of the general and special conditions. In respect of Kuthaka item 5, the highest bid was Rs.40,25,000/-and that in respect of Kuthaka item 31, was Rs.40,21,200/-. In respect of Kuthaka item 5, the highest bid was Rs.40,25,000/-and that in respect of Kuthaka item 31, was Rs.40,21,200/-. As against the aforesaid amount, in the tender process held on 14.11.2023, the petitioner quoted Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.39,00,000/- respectively, as stated in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit dated 28.11.2023 filed by respondents 2 to 4. 3. On 17.11.2023, when W.P.(C)No.38290 of 2023 came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that as the tender process could be concluded only by 10.00 p.m. on 14.11.2023, the successful bidders were granted an extension of time till 12.00 noon on 15.11.2023, for remitting the bid amount. Necessary documents to substantiate that fact can be placed on record, by the next posting date. 4. By the order dated 17.11.2023 in W.P.(C)No.38290 of 2023, the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Audit was suo motu impleaded as the additional 6th respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1st respondent and also for the additional 6th respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4. Notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 5th respondent, returnable by 21.11.2023. 5. On 21.11.2023, when W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023 came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 5th respondent, returnable by 29.11.2023. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to file a counter affidavit, within one week, producing therewith the records evidencing the remittance made by the 5th respondent on 15.11.2023, in respect of the Kuthaka item in question. 6. On 29.11.2023, when the above writ petitions came up for consideration, a counter affidavit dated 28.11.2023 on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, was placed on record in both the writ petitions, opposing the relief sought for, producing therewith Exts.R2(a) to R(e) documents. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of that counter affidavit read thus; “4. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has published Exhibit P1 notification for Kuthaka Lelams for the year 1199 ME. The petitioner has participated in the auction for Serial Nos.5, 31 and 34 and item 34 was awarded in his favor in the e-tender process. 5. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of that counter affidavit read thus; “4. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has published Exhibit P1 notification for Kuthaka Lelams for the year 1199 ME. The petitioner has participated in the auction for Serial Nos.5, 31 and 34 and item 34 was awarded in his favor in the e-tender process. 5. It is respectfully submitted that the open auction started at Devaswom Board Headquarters, Nanthancode, Thiruvananthapuramon 14.11.2023 at 04:00 pm. The petitioner quoted Rs. 40,00,000/- and the 5th respondent submitted a sealed tender for an amount of Rs. 40,25,000/-for the auction of Serial No 5 Exhibit P1. The 5th respondent was the highest bidder and the auction was confirmed in his favor. The auctioning process was concluded by 10:00 pm and by that time the banking time was over. Hence the highest bidders including 5th respondent couldn't remit the payment on that day. By considering this difficulty the 3rd respondent has extended the time for payment for all bidders by 12.00 noon on 15.11.2023 vide order No. EOP No. 196/2025/Sab, dated 14.11.2023 and reported the same to the 4th respondent. True copy of the order No. EOP No. 196/2023/Sab, dated 14.11.2023 issued by Executive Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(a). 6. It is respectfully submitted that the as per Exhibit-R2(a) the time was extended, and the 5th respondent has remitted the entire amount for the item, Sl.No.5 within the extended time. True of the Challan for Rs 20,12,750/- issued by Dhanlaxmi Bank to the 5th respondent received on 15.11.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(b). True of the Challan for Rs.20,12,750/- issued by Dhanlaxmi Bank to the 5th respondent dated 15.11.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(c). True of the Challan for Rs.7,24,590/- issued by Dhanlaxmi Bank to the 5th respondent dated 15.11.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(d). True of the Challan for Rs.50,000/- issued by Dhanlaxmi Bank to the 5th respondent dated 15.11.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(e). Hence there is no violation of the general conditions laid down in Exhibit P2 conditions as alleged by the petitioner.” 7. The 5th respondent has also filed counter affidavits dated 29.11.2023 in both the writ petitions, opposing the relief sought for, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(d) documents. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that counter affidavit read thus; “3. Hence there is no violation of the general conditions laid down in Exhibit P2 conditions as alleged by the petitioner.” 7. The 5th respondent has also filed counter affidavits dated 29.11.2023 in both the writ petitions, opposing the relief sought for, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(d) documents. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that counter affidavit read thus; “3. The averments contained in para 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are absolutely false and hence denied. The Writ Petition is filed on an experimental basis and is not maintainable. The averments of the petitioner that he had quoted up to Rs.39,00,000/- for item No.31 is not true to the facts. Since I was the highest bidder for Rs.40,21,200/- the tender was confirmed in my name. Since the said tendering process was completed at 10.00 PM on 14.11.2023, the Devaswom authorities had allowed me to remit the said tender amount on 15.11.2023 till 12.00 p.m. Pursuant to which I have paid the entire amount of Rs.48,40,016/- in the account of the Devaswom Accounts Officer, as per the terms of tender conditions, on 15.11.2023, in Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. as per the receipts which are produced as follows:- i. A true copy of the receipt for Rs.20,10,600/-from Dhanlaxmi Bank, Nanthancode Branch dated 15.11.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R5(a) for identification. ii. A true copy of another receipt for Rs.20,10,600/- from Dhanlaxmi Bank, dated 15.11.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R5(b) for identification. iii. A true copy of the receipt for Rs.7,23,816/-from Dhanlaxmi Bank, Nanthancode Branch dated 15.11.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R5(c) for identification. iv. A true copy of the receipts for Rs.95,000/-from Dhanlaxmi, Bank, Nanthancode Branch dated 15.11.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R5(d) for identification. It is humbly submitted that as per clause 5 of the tender conditions, the tender amount can be remitted only through RTGS, NEFT, and DD from the account of the bidder. The same is possible only during the banking hours. Hence the Devaswom authorities allowed to remit the said tender amount on 15.11.2023 till 12.00 P.M. for facilitating to transfer same from the account of the bidder as per the said terms and conditions of tender. 4. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are not correct and hence not sustainable.” 8. Hence the Devaswom authorities allowed to remit the said tender amount on 15.11.2023 till 12.00 P.M. for facilitating to transfer same from the account of the bidder as per the said terms and conditions of tender. 4. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are not correct and hence not sustainable.” 8. On 07.12.2023, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 04.12.2023 to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4 and also that filed by the 5th respondent, producing therewith Exts.P3 to P4(b) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 10 of that reply affidavit read thus; “3. As regards the completion of the auction, the claim raised by the 2nd Respondent is absolutely incorrect. The auction for item No. 5 was over by 4.30 PM and the auction for Sl No. 31 was over by 5PM. After both these auctions got over, my EMD was returned at about 6.15PM. I was given Rs.7,56,525/- for item No.5 and Rs.6,01,986 for item No.31. A total amount of Rs.13,56,500/- was deposited by me at Nanthancode Branch of Dhanlaxmi Bank at about 6.30 PM. The said branch is at a distance of less than 300m from the place where the auction was conducted. Therefore, the contention that the auction went on till late in the evening is absolutely incorrect and baseless. Copy of the pay in slip signed by Dhanlaxmi Bank, with its seal dated 14.11.2023, for having remitted Rs 13,56,500/- in my bank account is produced and marked as EXHIBIT P3. 4. Exhibit R5(a), Exhibit R5(b), Exhibit R5(c), Exhibit R5(d) challans produced along with the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent does not mention the Branch or contain the ST number in the challan. A similar challan remittance by a Kuthaka holder on the previous day (13.11.2023), for having remitted Rs.4,50,000/- is produced and marked as EXHIBIT P4. A challan remittance by a Kuthaka holder on the previous day (13.11.2023), for having remitted Rs.81,000/- is produced and marked as EXHIBIT P4(a). A similar challan remittance by a Kuthaka holder on the previous day (13.11.2023), for having remitted Rs.40,000/- is produced and marked as EXHIBIT P4(b). 5. The claim of the 5th respondent as also the Board that the amounts, as required, were remitted within the extended time (i.e., 12.00 PM on 15.11.2023) is also incorrect. A similar challan remittance by a Kuthaka holder on the previous day (13.11.2023), for having remitted Rs.40,000/- is produced and marked as EXHIBIT P4(b). 5. The claim of the 5th respondent as also the Board that the amounts, as required, were remitted within the extended time (i.e., 12.00 PM on 15.11.2023) is also incorrect. On verification, petitioner understands that an amount of Rs.67,84,000/- was remitted to the Devaswom Board's account on 15.11.2023 at 4.00 PM only. An amount of Rs.20,74,110/- was remitted at 11.30 AM on 16.11.2023 only. Thus, the 5th Respondent has violated the time frame stipulated originally and extended. 6. Moreover, the claims as referred above by the petitioner admits a remittance of Rs.67,84,000/- and Rs.20,74,110/-. This totals to an amount of Rs.88,58,110/-. Actually, going by the claims made by the petitioner in Exhibit R5(a), R5(b), R5(c) and R5(d) in W.P.(c)No.38290 of 2023, an amount of Rs.48,00,090/-and going by Exhibit R5(a). R5(b), R5(c) and R5(d), an amount of Rs.48,40,016/- is to be paid. These two figures totals to Rs.96,40,106/-. Thus, there is a short remittance of Rs.7,81,996/-. 7. For the above mentioned reasons, it has become imperative that the Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd, the official banker to the 2nd Respondent, at its Nanthancode Branch, is to be brought on party array for verification and assertion of the factual aspects mentioned above. 8. A separate petition is being filed seeking to implead the additional respondents. I have not filed any other petitions seeking the same or identical reliefs as sought for in this petition. 9. Another petition seeking to compel the additional respondent sought to be impleaded, to make available before this Honourable Court/state on oath the particulars and quantum of remittance made by the 5th Respondent to the account of the 2nd Respondent, mentioned in clause 5 of Exhibit P2 is also being filed. 10. The petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury if the relief sought for in these petitions are not granted. As such, the petitioner seeks to bring on record (1) that there is no provision in Exhibit P2 for an extension of time. On the contrary, there is a stipulation that same-day remittance should be made. 10. The petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury if the relief sought for in these petitions are not granted. As such, the petitioner seeks to bring on record (1) that there is no provision in Exhibit P2 for an extension of time. On the contrary, there is a stipulation that same-day remittance should be made. (2) Even assuming, without admitting that the Board had legally extended the time, the 5th Respondent did not make remittance even during the extended period and (3) that, even assuming that (1) and (2) above are to be legally discarded, money as claimed by the Board and the 5th Respondent, to the tune of Rs.96,40,106/- ought to have been remitted by the 5th respondent. But he remitted only Rs.88,58,110/-thereby making a short remittance of Rs.7,81,996/-.” 9. On 20.12.2023, along with a memo filed by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, the bank account statement of the 5th respondent was placed on record, in order to show the remittance of the bid amount on 15.11.2023 and 16.11.2023, in respect of Kuthaka items 5 and 31 in Ext.P1 list. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the cash balance in the account of the 5th respondent as on 14.11.2023 was only Rs.329.93 and that as on 15.11.2023, was only Rs.46.93. However, more than Rs.67 lakhs was credited to that account on 15.11.2023, by way of various transactions made by third parties. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions, as to the annual income of the 5th respondent, as per the Income Tax Returns, which form part of the tender documents. 10. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in both the writ petitions, seeking an order to implead Dhanlaxmi Bank, Nanthancode Branch, represented by its Branch Manager, as additional 7th respondent and I.A.No.2 of 2023, seeking an order directing the additional 7th respondent to make available before this Court or state on oath the particulars and quantum of remittance made by the 5th respondent to the account of the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, as mentioned in clause 5 of Ext.P2 general and special conditions, which form part of the tender notification, under Section 6(1) of the Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, 1891. On 20.12.2023, the petitioner was directed to take out notice in those interlocutory applications to the additional 7th respondent sought to be impleaded, by special messenger, returnable by 22.12.2023. 11. By the order dated 04.01.2024, I.A.No.1 of 2023 in both the writ petitions were allowed and Dhanlaxmi Bank, represented by its Branch Manager, Nanthancode Branch, was impleaded as the additional 7th respondent. The additional 7th respondent has filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023, seeking an order to accept Ext.R7(a) statement of account for the period from 10.11.2023 to 20.11.2023 of the account maintained by the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board at its Nanthancode Branch. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit dated 03.01.2024 filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2024, it is stated that the amounts transferred from the account of the 5th respondent were credited to the Travancore Devaswom Board on 15.11.2023 at 6.27 p.m. The instructions given by the 5th respondent to transfer Rs.20,10,600/-, Rs.20,10,600/-, Rs.7,23,816/- and Rs.95,000/-, totalling an amount of Rs.48,40,016/- to the account of the Travancore Devaswom Board was around 6.15 p.m. on 15.11.2023. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit dated 03.01.2024 read thus; “3. The 5th Respondent gave instructions to the Nanthancode Branch of the 7th respondent to transfer Rs.20,10,600.00, Rs.20,10,600.00, Rs.7,23,816.00 and Rs.95,000.00, totalling to an amount of Rs.48,40,016.00 from his account to the account of Devaswom Accounts Officer of Travancore Devaswom Board for item 31, at around 6.15 PM on 15.11.2023. The amount was subsequently transferred to the account of Devaswom Accounts Officer of Travancore Devaswom Board (A/c No.012600100000019) by the Bank on 15.11.2023 at 6.27 PM. A true copy of Statement of Account of Account No. 012600100000019 in Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd for the period from 10.11.2023 to 20.11.2023 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit R7(a). 4. Exhibit R7(a) is a relevant document for the just and proper adjudication of the above Writ Petition. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept Exhibit R7(a) on the files of the above Writ Petition and the same may kindly be considered during the adjudication of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.” 12. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept Exhibit R7(a) on the files of the above Writ Petition and the same may kindly be considered during the adjudication of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.” 12. In the order dated 04.01.2024, this Court noticed that the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of in I.A.No.1 of 2024 would prima facie show that the statement made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 28.11.2023 filed on behalf of the Board, which is one sworn to by its Secretary, and the statement made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit dated 29.11.2023 filed by the 5th respondent, are factually incorrect. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent sought time to file an affidavit, explaining the facts and circumstances. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board sought time to get instructions. In I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.(C)No.38290 of 2023, the learned counsel for the additional 7th respondent sought time to produce the particulars sought for in that application. On 05.01.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the entries in Ext.R7(a) statement of accounts placed on record in respect of Kuthaka items 5 and 31, regarding the remittance made by the 5th respondent. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent sought further time to file an affidavit, in terms of the order of this Court dated 04.01.2024. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.(C)No.38290 of 2023, the additional 7th respondent has placed on record Ext.R7(a) statement of account relating to the account maintained by the 2nd respondent Board in its Nanthancode Branch. Ext.R7(b) statement of accounts relating to the 5th respondent at Manacaud Branch and Ext.R7(c) cheque dated 16.11.2023 drawn on the additional 7th respondent Bank in favour of the 2nd respondent Board. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that affidavit read thus; “3. I am producing herewith as Exhibit R7(a), a true certified copy of the Statement of Account relating to the account of Devaswom Accounts Officer of Travancore Devaswom Board (A/c No.012600100000019) maintained at the Nanthancode Branch. I am producing herewith as Exhibit R7(b), a true certified copy of the Statement of Accounts relating to the 5th Respondent maintained at the Nanthancode Branch of the Bank. 4. I am producing herewith as Exhibit R7(b), a true certified copy of the Statement of Accounts relating to the 5th Respondent maintained at the Nanthancode Branch of the Bank. 4. I respectfully submit that, as is evident from Exhibit R7(b), at close of business, on 14.11.2023, the 5th Respondent's account had a balance of Rs.329.93. During the course of the day 15.11.2023, various remittances were received into the account of the 5th Respondent under RTGS, through UPI payments and some cash remittances, all of which took the balance in the account to go up to Rs.67,84,252.93. At about 18.15 hrs. on 15.11.2023, a Cheque No.176722 dated 15.11.2023 was received by the Bank together with 7 challans and instructions for transferring amounts to the Devaswom Account. Four of the Challans related to item No.31 and three related to item No.5. Based on the instructions and the challans, amounts were transferred to the account of the 2nd Respondent at 18.27 hrs. on 15.11.2023. The balance in the account of the 5th Respondent at close on 15.11.2023 was Rs.46.93. 5. On 16.11.2023, a total amount of Rs.20,75,000.00 came to be credited to the account of the 5th Respondent. Around 12.00 hrs, a cheque No.19022 dated 16.11.2023 for Rs.20,74,110.00 for transferring Rs.20,12,750.00 to the 2nd Respondent's account was received, together with a photocopy of Exhibit R2(b) Challan. Based on the above instructions, the Bank transferred a sum of Rs.20,12,750.00 to the account of the 2nd Respondent on 16.11.2023 at 12.03 hrs. A true copy of Cheque No.19022 dated 16.11.2023 drawn from the additional 7th Respondent Bank in favour of the 2nd respondent is produced herewith as Exhibit R7(c). 6. Exhibits R7(a), R7(b) and R7(c) are relevant documents for the just and proper adjudication of the above Writ Petition. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept Exhibit R7(a). Exhibit R7(b) and Exhibit R7(c) on the files of the above Writ Petition and the same may kindly be considered during the adjudication of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.” 13. On 09.01.2024, an additional affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023 has been placed on record. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of that affidavit read thus; “4. On 09.01.2024, an additional affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023 has been placed on record. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of that affidavit read thus; “4. It is submitted that the Board issued an order dated 07.11.2023 to conduct an open auction of 119 Kuthaka items which were not gone in the auction in the first three e-tenders. Accordingly, it was decided to conduct the open auction of the above Kuthaka items on 13.11.2023 and 14.11.2023 at Devaswom Board Headquarters, Nanthancode, Thiruvananthapuram. In the auction conducted on 13.11.2023, twelve items were auctioned and on 14.11.2023 morning, six items were auctioned. In the afternoon, the auction could be commenced only at 4.00 p.m. The auction of Kuthaka items 5, 31, 34 and other 97 items was conducted on 14.11.2023 afternoon from 4.00 p.m onwards and continued till 10.00 p.m. on that day. Since the banking hours were over by that time, the Kuthaka holders were given time up to 12.00 noon on 15.11.2023 to remit the Kuthaka amount. 5. It is submitted that, on 15.11.2023, by 1.00 p.m., the Kuthaka holders were contacted over the phone to ascertain whether they have remitted the Kuthaka amount. At that time, 5th respondent informed that he had remitted the Kuthaka amount and will produce the challan evidencing payment, on that day itself. Accordingly, he produced Exhibits R2(b) to R2(e) challans in the Board office, in the evening on 15.11.2023. Exhibits-R2(b) to R2(e) challans produced by the 5th respondent have the seal of the bank, bearing the date 15.11.2023. In the light of Exhibist R2(b) to R2(e) evidencing payment of full Kuthaka amount, the Kuthaka item 31 is confirmed in the name of the 5th respondent.” 14. The 5th respondent has filed an additional affidavit dated 08.01.2024. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that affidavit read thus; “3. It is humbly submitted that the Additional 7th respondent Bank filed an affidavit dated 03.01.2024 stating that Rs.20,10,600/-, Rs.20,10,600/-, Rs.7,23,816/- and Rs.95,000/-, totalling Rs.48,40,016/-were transferred from my account to the account of the Devaswom Accounts Officer of Travancore Devaswom Board for item 31 on 15.11.2023 at around 6.15 P.M. In W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023 the Bank produced Statement of Accounts (A/C No. 012600100000019) of Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd., Nanthacode Branch as Exhibit-R7(a). 4. 4. It is humbly submitted that in Exhibit-R7(a) Statement of Accounts in W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023, it is evident that Rs.20,12,759/-, Rs.7,24,590/- and Rs.50,000/- were transferred from my account to the account of the Devaswom Accounts Officer of Travancore Devaswom Board for item 5 Stall on 15.11.2023. It is humbly submitted that the above said amounts were debited from my account towards the payment of Exhibits R5(a), R5(c) and R5(d) TDB Challans respectively. It is humbly submitted that the cheque in my account for the said transfer of amounts was given to the bank on 15.11.2023 along with the said TDB Challans and the Bank has received the same, which are evidenced by Exhibits R5(a), R5(c) and R5(d). Pursuant to this, the said amounts were transferred to the account of Devaswom Accounts Officer. In addition to that I have also given DD in favour of Devaswom Accounts Officer for an amount of Rs.8,43,150/- on 15.11.2023 for payment of the tender amount. Thereafter I gave a cheque dated 16.11.2023 for Rs.20,12,750/- towards the payment of Exhibit R5(b) TDB Challan and that payment was also deducted from my account and credited to the account of Devaswom Accounts Officer on 16.11.2023, which is evident from Exhibit R7(a) in W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023. Thus, I have paid the entire tender amount for the stall (Item No.5).” 15. Heard detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State and official respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the Board and its officials, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and also the learned counsel for the 7th respondent Bank, on 10.01.2024 and thereafter, on 17.01.2024. 16. The description of Kuthaka items 5 and 31 in Ext.P1 list of Kuthaka items, which form part of the tender notification dated 07.11.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent Executive Officer, Sabarimala, read thus; 17. In Ext.P1 list of Kuthaka items, it is specifically mentioned that the tender process is subject to the general and special conditions which form part of that notification, a copy of which is placed on record as Ext.P2. Clause 4 of the general conditions in Ext.P2 provides that Kuthaka items are classified as categories A, B and C, based on the minimum amount to be quoted (upset price). Clause 4 of the general conditions in Ext.P2 provides that Kuthaka items are classified as categories A, B and C, based on the minimum amount to be quoted (upset price). Kuthaka items with upset price above Rs.30,00,000/- falls under ‘A’ category, from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.29,99,999/- in ‘B’ category and below Rs.15,00,000/- as ‘C’ category. Clauses 4 to 13 of the general conditions in Ext.P2 read thus; Account No : 012600100000019 Customer Name : M/S.DEVASWOM ACCOUNTS OFFICER Bank : DHANLAXMI BANK LTD. IFSC Code : DLXB0000275 Branch : NANTHACODE, TRIVANDRUM 18. The provisions under Clause (4) of the general conditions, which forms part of Ext.P2, would make it explicitly clear that successful bidders in respect of Kuthaka items for a bid amount up to Rs.1 crore are required to remit the entire bid amount together with interest 18% GST and other security deposits, on that day itself, in the auction hall. In respect of Kuthaka items for bid amounts exceeding Rs.1 crore, successful bidders are required to remit 50% of that amount + 18% GST and other security deposits, on that day itself, in the auction hall. In case of default, such Kuthaka items will be included in the re-tender notification and the EMD by way of Demand Draft/Cash shall be adjusted towards fine to the Department. 19. As per Clause (5) of the general conditions, the successful bidders have to make the remittance of the bid amount by account transfer like RTGS, NEFT and DD. In case any remittance has been made from the account of a third party, that amount will not be treated as a remittance made towards the bid amount under any circumstances. The accounts particulars of the Devaswom Accounts Office at Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd, Nanthancode Branch are provided in Ext.P2. 20. On a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that during the process of auction, Dhanlaxmi Bank will open a counter in the auction hall in the Devaswom Head Quarters, so as to enable the bidders to make remittance. In addition to this Nanthancode Branch of Dhanlaxmi Bank is at a distance of only 300 metres away from the main entrance of the Devaswom Head Quarters. 21. In addition to this Nanthancode Branch of Dhanlaxmi Bank is at a distance of only 300 metres away from the main entrance of the Devaswom Head Quarters. 21. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4 is that in the open tender conducted in the Devaswom Head Quarters on 14.04.2023 at 04.00 p.m., the petitioner quoted Rs.39 lakhs and the 5th respondent submitted a sealed tender for an amount of Rs.40,21,200/- in respect of Kuthaka item 31. In respect of Kuthaka item No.5, the petitioner quoted Rs.40 lakhs and the 5th respondent submitted a sealed tender for Rs.40,25,000/-. Since the 5th respondent quoted the highest amount, the auction was confirmed in his name and the auction process was concluded by 10.00 p.m. on 14.11.2023. By that time, the banking time was over, hence the bidders could not remit the payments on that day. Considering that aspect, the 3rd respondent Executive Officer extended the time up to 12.00 noon on 15.11.2023, vide Ext.R2(a) order dated 14.11.2023, which was reported to the 4th respondent Devaswom Commissioner. Accordingly, the 5th respondent remitted the entire Kuthaka amount for Kuthaka items 5 and 31, within the time limit stipulated in Ext.R2(a). To substantiate that fact, Exts.R2(b) to R2(e) documents are placed on record along with the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4 in W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023, in respect of Kuthaka item 31. Similarly, in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.38290 of 2023, Exts.R2(b) to R2(e) documents are placed on record, in respect of Kuthaka item 5. 22. On 07.09.2023, the petitioner filed reply affidavit in both the writ petitions, wherein it was pointed out that the auction for Kuthaka item 5 was over by 4.30 p.m. and that for Kuthaka item 31 was over by 05.00 p.m. The EMD of Rs.7,56,525/- in respect of Kuthaka item 5 and Rs.6,01,986/- for Kuthaka item 31, amounting to a total sum of Rs.13,56,500/- was returned to the petitioner at about 06.15 p.m., which was deposited at the Nanthancode Branch of Dhanlaxmi Bank at 06.30 p.m., as evident from Ext.P3 pay-in-slip dated 14.11.2023. In the reply affidavit, it is pointed out that the documents produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent do not mention the Branch or it contains the ST number in the challan. In the reply affidavit, it is pointed out that the documents produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent do not mention the Branch or it contains the ST number in the challan. Exts.P4 to P4(b) challans regarding the remittance made by the Kuthaka holders on 13.11.2023 are placed on record as Exts.P4 to P4(b). In the reply affidavit, it is contended that the claim of the 5th respondent and the Board that the required amounts were remitted by the 5th respondent within the extended time, i.e., 12.00 noon on 15.11.2023, is incorrect. The amount of Rs.67,84,000/- was remitted to the account of the Board on 15.11.2023 at 04.00 p.m. An amount of Rs.20,74,110/- was remitted at 11.30 a.m. on 16.11.2023. Therefore, the 5th respondent has violated the time frame stipulated for such a payment originally and also the extended time frame in Ext.R2(a). In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has also pointed out a short remittance by the 5th respondent in respect of item 5. 23. The additional 7th respondent, the Branch Manager of Dhanlaxmi Bank, Nanthancode Branch has filed an affidavit in support of I.A.No.1 of 2024 in both the writ petitions, wherein it is stated that the 5th respondent gave instructions to Nanthancode Branch to transfer a total sum of Rs.48,40,016/- from his account to the account of the Devaswom Accounts Officer for Kuthaka item 31 at around 06.15 p.m. on 15.11.2023 and that amount was subsequently transferred to the account of the Devaswom Accounts Officer by the Bank on 15.11.2023 at 06.27 p.m. As evident from the affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, an amount of Rs.20,75,000/- in respect of Kuthaka item 5 was credited to the account of the 5th respondent on 16.11.2023. Around 12.00 hours a cheque bearing No.19022 dated 16.11.2023 for Rs.20,74,110/- for transferring Rs.20,12,752/- to the account of the Travancore Devaswom Board was received in the Nanthancode Branch, together with a photocopy of Ext.R2(b) challan. Based on the above instructions, the Bank transferred a sum of Rs.20,12,715/- to the account of the 2nd respondent on 16.11.2023 at 12.03 hours, a copy of the said cheque dated 16.11.2023 is placed on record as Ext.R7(b). 24. The fact that the payment of Rs.20,74,110/- in respect of Kuthaka item 5 was made by the 5th respondent, vide Ext.R7(c) cheque dated 16.11.2023, is not in dispute. 24. The fact that the payment of Rs.20,74,110/- in respect of Kuthaka item 5 was made by the 5th respondent, vide Ext.R7(c) cheque dated 16.11.2023, is not in dispute. The submission of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent is that the remittance made for a sum of Rs.20,74,110/-, vide Ext.R7(c) cheque dated 16.11.2023, in respect of Kuthaka item 5 has to be treated as a payment made within the extended time limit in Ext.R2(a), since that a cheque along with the challan was deposited in the Nanthancode Branch of Dhanlaxmi Bank on 15.11.2023 itself. Similarly, in respect of Kuthaka item 31, the remittances were made on 15.11.2023, vide cheques dated 15.11.2023. All those remittances will have to be treated as one made within the extended time limit specified in Ext.R2(a). 25. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent would place reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. [2019:KER:11470]. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of that decision read thus; “23. For the assessment years 1996-1997, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 the question arises as to: (iv) whether there could be a claim of deduction of Municipal tax, for which cheque was issued to the local authority prior to the end of the previous year relevant to the assessment year; but, however, the Bank statements show realization only on the commencement of the next assessment year. 24. The Tribunal has remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the years 1996-1997 and 1999-2000. For the year 2002-2003, it was specifically found that the cheque was tendered on 30.03.2002, which was cleared on 08.04.2002. The Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [25 ITR 529], held that when a cheque is not dishonoured but encashed, the payment relates back to the date of tendering of cheque. The date of payment would be the date of delivery of the cheque. We do not find any reason to cause interference to the order of the Tribunal. We, hence, answer question no: (iv) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. For the year 2002-2003, the Tribunal has looked at the dates and allowed the deduction. The date of payment would be the date of delivery of the cheque. We do not find any reason to cause interference to the order of the Tribunal. We, hence, answer question no: (iv) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. For the year 2002-2003, the Tribunal has looked at the dates and allowed the deduction. For the other two years, the AO would verify the dates and consider it in accordance with the cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.” 26. In Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. [2019:KER:11470] the Division Bench relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [ AIR 1954 SC 429 ], wherein it was held as follows; ‘Learned Solicitor-General, however, contends, on the’ authority of the decision in Kodarmal v. Sagormal [(1947) 9 Bom. L.R.903], that the request by the creditor to send a cheque does not imply any variation of the rule that payment by a negotiable instrument is conditional on its being honoured on presentation within due time. Even if we accept his contention that the facts referred to above are not sufficient to raise the implication that the cheques were accepted as payment and even if the sending of the cheques in terms of clause 15 or at the special request of the assessee did not operate as an unconditional discharge of the Government's liability even then the assesse's position will be no better. When it is said that a payment by negotiable instrument is a conditional payment what is meant is that such payment is subject to a condition subsequent that if the negotiable instrument is dishonoured on presentation the creditor may consider it as waste paper and resort to his original demand: Stedman v. Gooch [(1793) 1 Esp. 5. It is said in Benjamin on Sale, 8th Edition, page 788:- “The payment takes effect from the delivery of the bill, but is defeated by the happening of the condition, i.e, non-payment at maturity." 16. In Byles on Bills, 20th Edition, page 23, the position is summarised pithily as follows: “A cheque, unless dishonoured, is payment." 17. To the same effect are the passages to be found in Hart on Banking, 4th Edition, Volume 1, page 342. In Felix Hadley & Co, v. Hadley L.R. [(1891) 2Ch. In Byles on Bills, 20th Edition, page 23, the position is summarised pithily as follows: “A cheque, unless dishonoured, is payment." 17. To the same effect are the passages to be found in Hart on Banking, 4th Edition, Volume 1, page 342. In Felix Hadley & Co, v. Hadley L.R. [(1891) 2Ch. D 680, Byrne, J.] expressed the same idea in the following passage in his judgment at page 682: "In this case, I think what took place amounted to a conditional payment of the debt; the condition being that the cheque or bill should be duly met or honoured at the proper date. If that be the true view, then I think the position is exactly as if an agreement had been expressly made that the bill or cheque should operate as payment unless defeated by dishonour or by not being met; and I think that that agreement is implied from giving and taking the cheques and bills in question." 18. The following observations of Lord Maugham in Rhokana Corporation v. Inland Revenue, Commissioners L.R [(1938) A.C. 380] are also apposite: "Apart from the express terms of section 33, sub-section 1, a similar conclusion might be founded on the well known common law rules as to the effect of the sending of a cheque in payment of a debt, and in the fact that though the payment is subject to the condition subsequent that the cheque must be met on presentation, the date of payment, if the cheque is duly met, is the date when the cheque was posted." 19. In the case before us none of the cheques has been dishonoured on presentation and payment cannot, therefore, be said to have been defeated by the happening of the condition subsequent, namely dishonour by non-payment and that being so there can be no question, therefore, that the assessee did not receive payment by the receipt of the cheques. The position, therefore, is that in one view of the matter there was, in the circumstances of this case, an implied agreement under which the cheques were accepted unconditionally as payment and on another view, even if the cheques were taken conditionally, the cheques not having been dishonoured but having been cashed, the payment related back to the dates of the receipt of the cheques and in law the dates of payments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques. 20. On the footing, then, that the assessee received payment as soon as the cheques were delivered to it the question still remains as to when and where the assessee received such payment………..” 27. In the case on hand the specific condition stipulated in clause 4 of the general conditions, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 17 is that the successful bidders in respect of Kuthaka items for a bid amount up to Rs.1 crore are required to remit the entire bid amount together with interest 18% GST and other security deposits, on that day itself, in the auction hall. In respect of Kuthaka items for bid amounts exceeding Rs.1 crore, successful bidders are required to remit 50% of that amount + 18% GST and other security deposits, on that day itself, in the auction hall. In case of default, such Kuthaka items will be included in the re-tender notification and the EMD by way of Demand Draft/Cash shall be adjusted towards fine to the Department. In view of the above stipulation in clause 4 of the general conditions, the remittance made by the 5th respondent vide Ext.R7(c) cheque dated 16.11.2023 for a sum of Rs.20,74,110/-, though that cheque was deposited in the Nanthancode Branch of Dhanlaxmi Bank on 15.11.2023 would not satisfy the requirement of the extended time frame in Ext.R2(a) order dated 14.11.2023 of the 3rd respondent Executive Officer whereby the successful bidders were granted extended time up to 12.00 noon on 15.11.2023 for remitting the bid amount in terms of clause 4 of the general conditions. The law laid down in the decision of the Division Bench in Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. [2019:KER:11470] and that laid down by the Apex Court in Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [ AIR 1954 SC 429 ] will not in any manner support the argument of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that the remittance made vide Ext.R7(c) cheque dated 16.11.2023 has to be treated as a payment made within the extended time of 12.00 noon on 15.11.2023 granted in Ext.R2(a) order dated 14.11.2023. 28. 28. Though, during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the 7th respondent pointed out that certain remittances made by the 5th respondent in respect of Kuthaka item 31 were actually made after the extended time granted in Ext.R2(a), a statement to that effect has not been made in the affidavit filed by the Branch Manager. The 5th respondent has filed an additional affidavit denying the averments in that affidavit. In the absence of an affidavit to that effect, sworn to by the Branch Manager, we do not propose to consider that aspect in these proceedings, insofar as Kuthaka item 31 is concerned. 29. Insofar as Kuthaka item 5 is concerned, we find absolutely no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that the remittance made vide cheque dated 16.11.2023 has to be treated as a remittance made within the extended time granted in Ext.R2(a). 30. On the above aspect, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works [ (1991) 3 SCC 273 ]. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of that decision read thus; “6. It is true that in submitting its tender accompanied by a cheque of the Union Bank of India and not of the State Bank clause No.6 of the tender notice was not obeyed literally, but the question is as to whether the said non-compliance deprived the Diesel Locomotive Works of the authority to accept the bid. As a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases. This aspect was examined by this Court in G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka [ (1990) 2 SCC 488 ], a case dealing with tenders. Although not in an entirely identical situation as the present one, the observations in the judgment support our view. The High Court has, in the impugned decision, relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [ (1979) 3 SCC 489 ], but has failed to appreciate that the reported case belonged to the first category where the strict compliance of the condition could be insisted upon. The authority in that case, by not insisting upon the requirement in the tender notice which was an essential condition of eligibility, bestowed a favour on one of the bidders, which amounted to illegal discrimination. The judgment indicates that the Court closely examined the nature of the condition which had been relaxed and its impact before answering the question whether it could have validly condoned the shortcoming in the tender in question. This part of the judgment demonstrates the difference between the two categories of the conditions discussed above. However it remains to be seen as to which of the two clauses the present case belongs. xx xx xx xx 8. In the present case the certified cheque of the Union Bank of India drawn on its own branch must be treated as sufficient for the purpose of achieving the object of the condition and the Tender Committee took the abundant caution by a further verification from the bank. In this situation it is not correct to hold that the Diesel Locomotive Works had no authority to waive the technical literal compliance of clause 6, specially when it was in its interest not to reject the said bid which was the highest. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petition of the respondent No.1 filed before the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout.” 31. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petition of the respondent No.1 filed before the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout.” 31. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the decision of the Utharakhand High Court in Jeet Ram and Sons v. Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar and Others [2021 KHC OnLine 2163 : AIR 2021 UTT 24]. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said decision read thus; “11. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Coalfields Limited and another v. SLL SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and others, reported in [ (2016) 8 SCC 622 ]. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts as, after encashing the bank draft submitted by the petitioner towards tender document fee, respondents cannot insist upon the condition mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender. 12. Thus in the humble opinion of this Court, rejection of petitioner's technical bid for the reason assigned, does not appear to be justified. We find absolutely no merits in the aforesaid contention as well.” 32. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the case on hand the specific condition stipulated in clause 4 of the general conditions, is that the successful bidders in respect of Kuthaka items for a bid amount up to Rs.1 crore are required to remit the entire bid amount together with interest 18% GST and other security deposits, on that day itself, in the auction hall. In respect of Kuthaka items for bid amounts exceeding Rs.1 crore, successful bidders are required to remit 50% of that amount + 18% GST and other security deposits, on that day itself, in the auction hall. In case of default, such Kuthaka items will be included in the re-tender notification and the EMD by way of Demand Draft/Cash shall be adjusted towards fine to the Department. In view of the above stipulation in clause 4 of the general conditions, the remittance made by the 5th respondent vide Ext.R7(c) cheque dated 16.11.2023 for a sum of Rs.20,74,110/-, though that cheque was deposited in the Nanthancode Branch of Dhanlaxmi Bank on 15.11.2023 would not satisfy the mandatory requirement of clause 4 of the general conditions, which stipulates a time limit for remittance of the bid amount by the successful bidder. The consequence of default is also provided in clause 4, as per which in case of default, such Kuthaka items will be included in the re-tender notification and the EMD by way of demand draft/cash shall be adjusted towards fine to the department. In the above circumstances, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Poddar Steel Corporation [ (1991) 3 SCC 273 ] and that of the Utharakhand High Court in Jeet Ram and Sons [AIR 2021 UTT 24] will not in any manner support the argument of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that any default committed by the successful bidder in remitting the bid amount within the time limit stipulated in clause 4 of the general conditions or within the extended time granted in Ext.R2(a) order dated 14.11.2023 does not require enforcement rigidly. 33. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would place reliance on the decision of this Court in Laxmi Civil Engineering Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Water Authority [ 2023 (5) KHC 560 ] in order to contend that the petitioner, who quoted a lower rate than that quoted by the 5th respondent in respect of Kuthaka items 5 and 31 in Ext.P1 list of Kuthaka items cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Kuthaka right granted to that respondent and for re-tender. 34. The decision of this Court in Laxmi Civil Engineering Service Pvt. Ltd. [ 2023 (5) KHC 560 ] is one rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party, taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in TATA Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) [ (2022) 5 SCC 362 ] wherein the question that came up for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the High Court, after upholding the disqualification of TATA Motors Ltd. from the tender was justified in undertaking a further exercise to ascertain whether EVEY Trans Pvt. Ltd. (EVEY) also stood disqualified and that, BEST in its discretion may undertake a fresh tender process. The Apex Court found 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 BEST to declare EVEY as the eligible bidder. The High Court was not exercising its writ jurisdiction in 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. V. IBR Constructions Ltd. [ (1999) 1 SCC 492 ] the grant of judicial relief at the instance of a party that does not fulfill the requisite criteria is something which could be termed as misplaced. 35. In paragraph 74 of the decision in Laxmi Civil Engineering Service Pvt. Ltd. [ 2023 (5) KHC 560 ], this Court held that since the appellants does not have the required experience as per clause 7.17.1.2.8 of the general terms and conditions (Ext.P2) of the e-tender notification (Ext.P1) the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by them to assert their own rights on the ground that any judicial relief at the instance of a party who does not fulfil the requisite criteria, i.e., who does possess the prescribed experience qualification, is legally impermissible. 36. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent has also relied on another decision of the Apex Court in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Mb Power (Madya Pradesh) Limited [2024 KHC OnLine 6021], wherein the Apex Court held that the award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. It has been held that the State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It has further been held that the State can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. It has further been held that, price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It has been held that the State may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. It has further been held that, price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It has been held that the State may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. However, the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. It has further been held that even when some defect has been found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene. 37. In the instant case, as already noticed hereinbefore, the specific condition stipulated in clause 4 of the general conditions is that the successful bidders in respect of Kuthaka items for a bid amount up to Rs.1 crore are required to remit the entire bid amount together with interest 18% GST and other security deposits, on that day itself, in the auction hall. In respect of Kuthaka items for bid amounts exceeding Rs.1 crore, successful bidders are required to remit 50% of that amount + 18% GST and other security deposits, on that day itself, in the auction hall. In case of default, such Kuthaka items will be included in the re-tender notification and the EMD by way of Demand Draft/Cash shall be adjusted towards fine to the Department. 38. In case of default, such Kuthaka items will be included in the re-tender notification and the EMD by way of Demand Draft/Cash shall be adjusted towards fine to the Department. 38. In view of the above stipulation in clause 4 of the general conditions, the remittance made by the 5th respondent vide Ext.R7(c) cheque dated 16.11.2023 for a sum of Rs.20,74,110/-, though that cheque was deposited in the Nanthancode Branch of Dhanlaxmi Bank on 15.11.2023 would not satisfy the requirement of the extended time frame in Ext.R2(a) order dated 14.11.2023 of the 3rd respondent Executive Officer whereby the successful bidders were granted extended time up to 12.00 noon on 15.11.2023 for remitting the bid amount in terms of clause 4 of the general conditions. The law laid down by this Court in Laxmi Civil Engineering Services [ 2023 (5) KHC 560 ] and that laid down by the Apex Court in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2024 KHC OnLine 6021] will not in any manner support the argument of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that the petitioner, who quoted a lower rate than that quoted by the 5th respondent in respect of Kuthaka items 5 and 31 in Ext.P1 list of Kuthaka items cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Kuthaka right granted to that respondent and for re-tender. The said contention on behalf of the 5th respondent can only be rejected as untenable and we do so. 39. In the above circumstances, the petitioner will succeed in his challenge in W.P.(C)No.38290 of 2023 in respect of the Kuthaka item No.5 in Ext.P1 list of Kuthaka items in Sabarimala Devaswom during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1199 ME (2023-24), for the period from 11.11.2023 to 31.10.2024, since the remittance made by the 5th respondent vide Cheque dated 16.11.2023 cannot be treated as a remittance made by the 5th respondent in respect of that Kutha item, up to 12.00 noon on 15.11.2023, extended time granted by Ext.R2(a) order dated 14.11.2023 of the 3rd respondent Executive Officer granting time to successful bidders for remitting the bid amount in terms of clause 4 of the general conditions. The 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is directed to re-tender Kuthaka item No.5 in Ext.P1 list of Kuthaka items, for the remaining period, i.e., up to 31.10.2024, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after cancelling the grant of Kuthaka right to the 5th respondent, to the above extent. Since the 5th respondent was able to conduct Kuthaka item No.5 during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1199 ME, i.e., till 20.01.2024, on account of the cancellation of Kuthaka right, he will not be entitled for refund of a portion of the bid amount remitted by him in respect of that Kuthaka item. Insofar as Kuthaka item No.31, which is the subject matter in W.P.(C)No.38495 of 2023 is concerned, as already noticed hereinbefore, though it was pointed out during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the additional 7th respondent that certain remittances made by the 5th respondent in respect of Kuthaka item 31 were actually made after the extended time granted in Ext.R2(a), a statement to that effect has not been made in the affidavit filed by the Branch Manager. In paragraph 28 of this judgment, it is made clear that, in the absence of an affidavit to that effect sworn to by the Branch Manager of the 7th respondent Bank, we do not propose to consider that aspect in these proceedings insofar as Kuthaka item No.31 is concerned. Since the accounts of Sabarimala Devaswom are subjected to statutory audit by the additional 6th respondent Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit, we deem it appropriate to direct the said respondent to conduct a thorough enquiry in respect of payment of bid amounts by the 5th respondent and other successful bidders in respect of all Kuthaka items in Ext.P1 list of Kuthaka items, including Kuthaka item No.31, after verifying the records relating to the designated Bank account of the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board in the Nanthancode Branch of the 7th respondent Dhanlaxmi Bank. After verifying the relevant records, the additional 6th respondent shall file a detailed report before this Court on the above aspects, which shall be numbered as DBAR and listed before the Devaswom Bench, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. After verifying the relevant records, the additional 6th respondent shall file a detailed report before this Court on the above aspects, which shall be numbered as DBAR and listed before the Devaswom Bench, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.