JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. The issue involved in DBP No.9 of 2025 and W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025 centres around the offering of Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar in connection with the annual festival of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1200ME (2025). The dispute is between the petitioner in the writ petition, namely, Kunjachaman Samithi, Sakthikulangara, and the 4 th respondent, namely, Kara Devaswom Committee of Sree Sakthikulangara Dharma Sastha Temple, Kollam. 2. DBP No.9 of 2025 has been registered based on Report No.3 of 2025 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint No.55 of 2024 made by the Secretary of Kunjachaman Samithi, Sakthikulangara, claiming the privilege of offering Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar in connection with the annual festival of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. During the pendency of the said DBP, Kunjachaman Samithi, Sakthikulangara, filed W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash order No.ROC 9077/SAB dated 03.12.2024 of the Travancore Devaswom Board, granting the privilege of offering Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar in connection with the annual festival of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1200ME (2025) to the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee of Sree Sakthikulangara Dharma Sastha Temple, Kollam. The said order is marked as Annexure O2 in Report No.3 of 2025 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint No.55 of 2024. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board to consider its application for offering Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar in connection with the annual festival for the year 1200ME (2025), in a fair and transparent manner, strictly following the procedure prescribed in Ext.P2 communication dated 03.02.2022 issued by the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board addressed to the Devaswom Commissioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board to allow the petitioner to perform the religious and traditional duty of dedicating Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar for the year 1200ME (2025), in accordance with the long-established custom. 3. In DBP No.9 of 2025, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has filed an affidavit dated 06.03.2025 on behalf of the 1 st respondent Board, wherein it is stated that Kunjachaman Samithi does not have any vested right to claim the right to offer Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar in connection with the annual festival of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple continuously. The Devaswom Commissioner will identify the person for this purpose next year onwards, and the selection shall be made accordingly. 4. In W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025, the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee of Sree Sakthikulangara Dharma Sastha Temple, filed a counter affidavit dated 28.03.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(j)documents. 5. On 28.03.2025, when this DBP and writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed a detailed order. Paragraphs10 to 16 of the said order read thus; “10. Having considered the preliminary submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the pleadings and materials on record and the statutory provisions contained in Sections 15A and 31 of the Act, we arrive at a prima facie conclusion that, when the procession in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam is not part of any traditional rites or customary practice in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, the Travancore Devaswom Board ought not to have granted permission to the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee or any other organisation to take Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar to Sabarimala by procession passing through three districts. 11. From the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the 4 th respondent in the writ petition has already made arrangements for Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam and the procession has to commence on 30.03.2025, which will reach Sabarimala by 01.04.2025. In such circumstances, we find that the petitioner in the writ petition is not entitled for an interim stay of the order dated 03.12.2024 of the 1 st respondent Board, a copy of which is marked as Ext.R4(d), along with the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, whereby the Kara Devaswom Committee is granted permission for Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam for the year 1200ME. However, we make it clear that the legality of such a permission, granted to the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee, will be considered in this DBP and writ petition. 12. The document marked as Ext.R4(e) is a notice published by the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee, in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam, in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, for the year 1200ME (2025). In the said notice, it is printed that Kollam Sakthikulangara Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is under the management of Kara Devaswom Board. 13. 12. The document marked as Ext.R4(e) is a notice published by the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee, in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam, in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, for the year 1200ME (2025). In the said notice, it is printed that Kollam Sakthikulangara Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is under the management of Kara Devaswom Board. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would point out that Sakthikulangara Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is under Sakthikulangara Devaswom, which is an incorporated Devaswom included in Schedule I of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, which is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The learned Standing Counsel would also point out the orders issued by this Court regarding the printing of letterheads of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted in temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the printing of festival notices, based on which the Devaswom Commissioner has already issued various circulars. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that the publication of Ext.R4(e) notice by the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee, which claims the status of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sakthikulangara Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, is permissible only after prior approval by the concerned officer of the Board. 14. In the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the 2 nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner to file an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances in which Ext.R4(e) notice was published by the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee, in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam, mentioning that Sakthikulangara Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is under the management of the Kara Devaswom Board. 15. An additional affidavit sworn to by the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee, regarding the income and expenditure in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam of the year 1200ME (2025) shall be placed on record by 04.04.2025. 16. The Travancore Devaswom Board shall ensure, through the concerned Executive Officer/Sub Group Officer, that there is no collection of money from the devotees or public by the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee, in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam for the year 1200ME.” 6. After the order of this Court dated 28.03.2025, the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee has filed an additional affidavit 08.04.2025, producing therewith Exts.R4(k) to R4(m) documents. After the order of this Court dated 28.03.2025, the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee has filed an additional affidavit 08.04.2025, producing therewith Exts.R4(k) to R4(m) documents. Despite the direction contained in the said order dated 28.03.2025, the 2 nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner has not chosen to an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances in which Ext.R4(e) notice was published by the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee, in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam for the year 1200ME (2025), mentioning that Sakthikulangara Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is under the management of the Kara Devaswom Board. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Kunjachaman Samithi in W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025, the learned Senior Counsel for the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board for the Board and its officials, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the additional 3 rd respondent State and the additional 4 th respondent Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Kunjachaman Samithi and the learned Senior Counsel for the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee in W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025 addressed arguments in support of the rival claims made by the Samithi and Committee to offer Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar in connection with the annual festival of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State Audit Department submitted that, as noticed by this Court in the order dated 28.03.2025, Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam are not part of any traditional rites or customary practices in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. 9. 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. As per the provisions under Section 3 of the Act, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. 10. 9. 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. As per the provisions under Section 3 of the Act, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. 10. As per Section 15A of the Act, 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. 11. As per Section 24 of the Act, which deals with the maintenance of Devaswoms, etc., out of the Devaswom Fund, 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. 12. As per Section 31 of the Act, 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. 13. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee and another v. State of Kerala and others [ 2023 (2) KHC 290 ] , in view of the provisions contained in the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in a temple under its management are performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in such a temple for the devotees. Subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of a temple under its management and arrange for the conduct of daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in such a temple according to its usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of a temple under the management of the Board, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules (Bye-laws) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage. In the said decision, the Division Bench held further that ‘worshipper’ is a person who shows reverence and adoration for a deity, who is duty-bound to exercise the right to worship, which is a civil right, in an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition in each temple. 14. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Snigdha Sreenath (Minor) v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2024 KHC OnLine 1209] , the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act would make it explicitly clear that the role assigned to the Travancore Devaswom Board in the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms is that of a trustee in the management of the properties vested in the deity. The Board is bound to administer, supervise and control incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms in accordance with the provisions under the said Act. The Board and its officials are duty-bound to function within the framework of the statute by scrupulously following the stipulations contained therein and acting strictly in accordance with the settled legal principles relating to the administration of Hindu religious trusts. The Board, being a trustee in the management of Devaswom properties, is legally bound to perform its duties with utmost care and caution. 15. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025, Ext.R4(j) judgment of this Court dated 06.10.2022 in W.P.(C)No.3258 of 2015 is placed on record, which is in respect of procession in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam in Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, another temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 15. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025, Ext.R4(j) judgment of this Court dated 06.10.2022 in W.P.(C)No.3258 of 2015 is placed on record, which is in respect of procession in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam in Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, another temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. As noticed in paragraph 9 of the order of this Court dated 28.03.2025, in the case of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar procession starts from Chengalam Sree Bhagavathi Temple, which is only a few kilometers away from Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple. On the other hand, the procession in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which starts from Sakthikulangara Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, passes through three districts, namely, Kollam, Pathanamthitta and Alappuzha. 16. One of the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025 is a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board to allow the petitioner Kunjachaman Samithi to perform the religious and traditional duty of dedicating Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar for the year 1200ME (2025), in accordance with the long-established custom. As noticed in paragraph 7 of the order of this Court dated 28.03.2025, during the course of arguments, on a specific query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the procession in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam is not part of any traditional rites or customary practices in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. In paragraph 7 of the said order, this Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Kunjachaman Samithi and the learned Senior Counsel for the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee in W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025 that the procession in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam started only in the year 2017. 17. 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. 18. 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. 18. 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 the 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 the disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 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. 19. The petitioner Kunjachaman Samithi in W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025 has invoked the discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with unclean hands, suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court. In the writ petition, while seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that the procession in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple started only in the year 2017. In the writ petition, while seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that the procession in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple started only in the year 2017. Suppressing material facts, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board to allow it to perform the religious and traditional duty of dedicating Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar for the year 1200ME (2025), in accordance with the long-established custom. 20. In view of the provisions contained in Section 15A(i) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Board has a statutory duty to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple are performed promptly. In view of the provisions under Section 24 of the Act, the Board is duty-bound to administer the said temple in accordance with recognised usages. In view of the provisions under Section 31 of the Act, the Board is duty-bound to arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in the said temple according to its usage. The Board, being a trustee in the management of Devaswom properties, is legally bound to perform its duties with utmost care and caution. 21. As found in the order dated 28.03.2025 in this DBP and writ petition, when the procession in connection with Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar Samarpanam is not part of any traditional rites or customary practices in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, the Travancore Devaswom Board or the Devaswom Commissioner ought not to have granted permission to the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee or any other organisation to take Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar to Sabarimala by a procession passing through three districts. The prima facie conclusion in the order of this Court dated 28.03.2025 in this DBP and writ petition is made absolute. Consequently, the Travancore Devaswom Board is hereby restrained from granting any such permission in connection with the annual festivals of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. 22. The prima facie conclusion in the order of this Court dated 28.03.2025 in this DBP and writ petition is made absolute. Consequently, the Travancore Devaswom Board is hereby restrained from granting any such permission in connection with the annual festivals of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. 22. Pursuant to the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 28.03.2025, the 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee has produced the income and expenditure statement for Kodikkoora Kodikkayar Samarppanam in connection with the annual festival of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1200ME (2025), which are marked as Exts.R4(k) to R4(m) in the additional affidavit dated 08.04.2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025. The 4 th respondent Kara Devaswom Committee shall submit the income and expenditure statement along with supporting documents to the concerned Administrative Officer/Sub Group Officer of Sakthikulangara Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which shall be subjected to audit by the Finance and Accounts Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board, which shall be subjected to further audit by the Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit. With the above directions, this DBP and writ petition are disposed of.