JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, has filed this report based on an enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Devaswom Vigilance Wing, on a report submitted by the duty Magistrate, Pamba, regarding the sub-lease of Stall No.113 at Pamba Manappuram during Mandala Makaravilakku festival season of 1200ME (2024-25). A report dated 03.01.2025 of the Superintendent of Police, Chief Vigilance and Security Office, Thiruvananthapuram of Travancore Devaswom Board and the report dated 22.12.2024 of the duty Magistrate, Pamba, addressed to the Vigilance Officer, Pamba, Travancore Devaswom Board, are enclosed with the report of the Special Commissioner. In the report dated 28.12.2024, the 6 th respondent, Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, has stated that the ’kuthaka right’ in respect of Stall No.113 was for an area of 4x5 m, i.e., 20 Sq.ms. But the Kuthaka holder encroached upon more area, constructed their stall, dividing it into two different parts and sublet it to two different persons, i.e., one to Sri. Arun Suresh and another to Sri. Baiju. 2. 20.01.2025, when this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board made available for the perusal of this Court the Kuthaka certificate and agreement in respect of Stall No.113 at Pamba Manappuram. The report of the 5 th respondent Executive Officer, furnishing the details of Sri.Arun Suresh and Sri. Baiju, who conducted the stalls in the area covered by that Kuthaka certificate, was directed to be placed on record. 3. On 27.01.2025, when this SSCR came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that a copy of the Kuthaka certificate, Kuthaka agreement, notice dated 15.01.2025 issued to the Kuthaka holder and the reply received from the Kuthaka holder are placed on record along with a memo. The additional 7 th respondent was suo motu impleaded based on the Kuthaka agreement, etc., placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board. The learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for respondents 1 and 2, and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 to 6. Urgent notice was ordered by speed post to the additional 7 th respondent returnable within three weeks. 4. On 20.02.2025, the additional 7 th respondent entered appearance through a counsel, who sought one week time to file counter affidavit. 5. Urgent notice was ordered by speed post to the additional 7 th respondent returnable within three weeks. 4. On 20.02.2025, the additional 7 th respondent entered appearance through a counsel, who sought one week time to file counter affidavit. 5. On 10.03.2025, the description of the 2 nd respondent was suo motu corrected. The additional 7 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 01.03.2025, producing there with Ext.R7(a) document. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of that counter affidavit read thus; "2. It is submitted that, the person named “Suresh” to whom it is alleged that the 7 th respondent has sub-let his tender are partners for the past many years. It is submitted that, as per the rules the maximum number of tender a person can take is three and the 7 th respondent herein is already having three tenders. It is submitted that, one among the above-mentioned three tenders is the tender under SI. No 113 in which the alleged incident has taken place. The true copy of the acknowledgement receipt showing that the SI. No. 113 tender has been taken place. The true copy of the acknowledgement receipt showing that the Sl.No.113 tender has been taken by the 7 th respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R7(a). 3. It is submitted that, since the 7 th respondent herein and the Suresh are partners, the amount required to acquire the tender was equally shared between the 7 th respondent and Suresh. Further, the 7 th respondent and the Suresh has decided to either carry out the tender by themselves or to share the profits between them. 4. It is submitted that the 7 th respondent herein has acquired the tender of Clock Room for an amount of Rs. 1,600,0000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lakhs). It is submitted that the said Clock Room was acquired through tender by another person for the past many years and this person has been blacklisted by this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that, it due to this previous enmity of this person to the 7 th respondent herein, that person has given false information to authorities of the Devasom and it is based on this information the report has been filed against the 7 th respondent. 5. It is submitted that, the 7 th respondent herein has not sub-let the tender to any other person as alleged. 5. It is submitted that, the 7 th respondent herein has not sub-let the tender to any other person as alleged. Since Suresh and the 7 th respondent are partners for the past many years, they have acquired the tender by spending equal shares and as a result of which Suresh is also getting profits out of that tender. 6. It is submitted that no encroachment has been done by the 7 th respondent herein to any of the reserved areas. It is submitted that, it is true that the property of the tender has been divided into two areas however, such division has been done only within the authorized area and there is no other encroachment. It is submitted that in the divided property Suresh is running a utensils shop and in the other portion the 7 th respondent is running a juice shop. It is submitted that the stall is put within an area earmarked by the officials and there is no encroachment on the part of this respondent in any other area which was alleged in enquiry report. This enquiry was not conducted without knowledge of this respondent and same was conducted not in his presence, till he was informed by the enquiry officer to give explanation. It is further submitted that this respondent had given explanation to the Executive officer on 17.2.2024 denying allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that this respondent was not aware under what circumstance paved Mr Ambadi to give such statement before Vigilance Officer on 23.12.2024. Hence in interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to drop all further proceeding in SSCR NO 4/2025 against this respondent." 6. The 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 10.03.2025. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that counter affidavit read thus; "3. It is submitted that the Kuthaka item No.113 (stall No. 10) of Pamba Devaswom for the year 1200 M.E was awarded to Syam Sasidharan Nair, Addl. R7 herein, for an amount of Rs.14,20,000/-, being the highest bidder. Stall No.10 having size of 4 * 5 meter near Toilet Block-C in Pamba manappuram was auctioned to Addl.7 th respondent for the sale of fruits, fruit juice, fruit extracts, thorthu, mundu, bermuda, baniyan, paste, brush, mirror, photos, steel vessels, provision, bakery, vegetables, readymade garments, paper cup, glass and crockery items. Stall No.10 having size of 4 * 5 meter near Toilet Block-C in Pamba manappuram was auctioned to Addl.7 th respondent for the sale of fruits, fruit juice, fruit extracts, thorthu, mundu, bermuda, baniyan, paste, brush, mirror, photos, steel vessels, provision, bakery, vegetables, readymade garments, paper cup, glass and crockery items. He has executed agreement dated 10.11.2024 with the Executive Officer agreeing to conduct business in the stall as per the tender conditions. The Kuthaka certificate was issued to him on 16.11.2024. 4. It is submitted that the duty Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security have reported that Addl.7 th respondent is using more space than what is allotted to him and he has sublet the kuhaka to two persons in violation of the tender conditions. The Executive Officer has issued a show cause notice dated 15.01.2025 to the kuthaka holder asking him to show cause why action should not be taken against him. The kuthaka holder, Addl. 7 th respondent has submitted a reply dated nil to the Executive Officer. The Addl. 7 th respondent is liable to pay extra amount for the additional space, if any, he is found to have been using, other than what is allotted to him. He is also liable to face action for the violation of tender conditions, if any, found against him. Stringent action will be taken against all persons, who are found to be conducting business violating the tender conditions." 7. On 07.04.2025, after arguing for some time, on a query made by this Court as to whether the additional 7 th respondent, who is the successful bidder for the Kuthaka right for an amount of Rs. 14,20,000/-, is an income tax assessee, the learned counsel sought time to get instructions. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to place on record the memo issued to the additional 7 th respondent, along with an application to accept additional documents. The additional 7 th respondent produced Exts.R7(b) to R7(e) documents along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, which would show the tax returns submitted by the additional 7 th respondent. The 3 rd respondent filed an affidavit dated 10.04.2025, producing therewith Annexure R3(a) to R3(c) documents. 8. The additional 7 th respondent produced Exts.R7(b) to R7(e) documents along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, which would show the tax returns submitted by the additional 7 th respondent. The 3 rd respondent filed an affidavit dated 10.04.2025, producing therewith Annexure R3(a) to R3(c) documents. 8. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Amicus Curiae for Sabarimala Special Commissioner and also the learned counsel for the additional 7 th respondent. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that the additional 7 th respondent obtained the Kuthaka right of item No.113 (Stall No.10) of Pamba Devaswom for the year 1200 ME (2024-25) for an amount of Rs. 14,20,000/-. The stall is having a size of 4x5 m near Toilet Block- C in Pamba Manappuram auctioned for the sale of fruits, fruit juice, fruit extracts, etc. When the duty Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security inspected the stall, it was found that the additional 7 th respondent is using more space than what is allotted to him, and he sub-let the kuthaka to two other persons, in violation of tender conditions. Hence, he was issued with Annexure R3(b) notice dated 15.01.2025, by the Executive Officer, Sabarimala, requiring him to make payment for the usage of extra space. Again, after measurement of the space by the Assistant Engineer, Annexure R3(c) notice dated 02.04.2025 was issued by the Executive Officer, Sabarimala, demanding the additional 7 th respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 29,080/- as rent for the additional space unauthorisedly occupied by him. Now, the additional 7 th respondent has paid the said amount, and the construction was removed from the additional space occupied by him. 10. The learned counsel for the additional 7 th respondent would submit that the additional 7 th respondent has not sublet the auctioned Kuthaka right to any other person. The additional 7 th respondent has acquired the tender of Clock Room for an amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. Previously the tender was acquired by another person for past many years, who has been blacklisted by this Court. It is due to this previous enmity that person gave false information against the additional 7 th respondent. The person, namely Suresh and the additional 7 th respondent are partners, and they acquired the tender by spending equal shares and as a result of which Sri. It is due to this previous enmity that person gave false information against the additional 7 th respondent. The person, namely Suresh and the additional 7 th respondent are partners, and they acquired the tender by spending equal shares and as a result of which Sri. Suresh is getting profit out of that tender. 11. In Sreekumar V. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 2015 (2) KHC 714 ] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] is a party, directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to incorporate the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (xiii) in Para 6 of the order dated 09/02/2015 in W.P.(C)No.3206 of 2014 with necessary modifications in all tender notifications issued by the Board to conduct public auction of the right to open temporary stalls/shops on the Devaswom property of all the temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board, treating it as general guidelines. In that writ petition, this Court was dealing with the irregularities pointed out in the conduct of the public auction of the right to conduct temporary stalls/shops on the Devaswom property of Sree Vallabha Maha Temple, Thiruvalla, during the annual festival season. Clauses (i) to (xiii) in Para 6 of the order dated 09.02.2015 read thus: “(i) The auction shall be confined to 49 plots identified in the site sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvalla and produced before this Court; (ii) The upset price for the plots shall be as mentioned in the statement prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvalla and produced before this Court; (iii) The auction shall be conducted in the presence of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board, who shall ensure that the intending bidders are not prevented in any manner by persons with vested interests. The Chief Vigilance Officer shall also seek Police assistance for the smooth conduct of the auction, if found necessary; (iv) At the time of auction, the bidders shall carry their voter’s identity card issued by the Election Commission of India or any other proof of identity recognised by the Government and shall also furnish a self - attested photostat copy of the identity card to the Officer conducting the auction. (v) The intending bidders shall produce the requisite EMD by way of Demand Draft drawn in their name. (v) The intending bidders shall produce the requisite EMD by way of Demand Draft drawn in their name. (vi) No bidder shall be permitted to bid for more than one plot. If there are vacant plots after the auction, such plots shall be put to auction on the very next day at the very same time. In the absence of sufficient number of bidders on the second day, more than one plot can be allotted to a single bidder; (vii) No licensee shall be permitted to put up more than one stall / shop on a single plot; (viii) No person shall be permitted to conduct any stall / shop in an area other than that shown in the sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvalla; (ix) No licensee shall have the right to re - auction / sub-let the plot to a third party and if any such instance comes to the notice of the Board, the Board shall be entitled to cancel such license forthwith and evict the licensee from the plot, by forfeiting the entire license fee. But the Board shall give the licensee a reasonable time to remove his articles; (x) The licensee should personally conduct the business in the stall / shop put up on the plot taken in auction and he should also carry his proof of identity with him while conducting such business; (xi) No licensee shall be permitted to occupy the plot allotted to him beyond the period of the license. But it would be open to the Board to give a grace period up to one week, after collecting proportionate license fee, to enable the licensee to remove his articles from the plot or for selling the balance articles; (xii) No member of the Temple Advisory Committee or their near relations, or the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board or their near relations shall be entitled to participate in the auction either personally or as a nominee of another; (xiii) No bidder shall interfere with the conduct of any religious rites, rituals, customs, practises and other ceremonies of the temple. Bidders shall be bound to follow the temple manners and instructions issued by the Board from time to time, failing which he will be summarily evicted after forfeiting the entire license fee.” 12. Bidders shall be bound to follow the temple manners and instructions issued by the Board from time to time, failing which he will be summarily evicted after forfeiting the entire license fee.” 12. In K.N. Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 11672 ] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] is a party, held that, in view of the judgment in Sreekumar V [ 2015 (2) KHC 714 ] any public auction of the right to open temporary shops/stalls in the Devaswom ground in front of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple and also in the Kovil Padam Road owned by the Devaswom can be conducted only in terms of the general guidelines framed in that judgment. 13. In compliance with the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 09.02.2015 in W.P.(C)No.3206 of 2014 the Devaswom Commissioner issued a circular dated 13.07.2015 stipulating the general guidelines in respect of the right to conduct stalls/shops in Devaswom properties, wherein it is provided that no licensee shall have the right of re - auction / sub-let the plot to third parties and that the licensee should personally conduct business in the stall. 14. In Suneesh.K.S v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ ILR 2022 (1) Ker.1091 ], in the case of erection of a stall encroaching the public way by a kuthaka holder of Valliyamkavu Devi Temple, Mundakkayam, a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] is a party, held thus: “The traders, who are successful bidders of various kuthaka items in the temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board, shall not be permitted to exhibit in front of their stall either the name of Travancore Devaswom Board or the name of the deity or temple. They shall also not be permitted to exhibit their mobile number or telephone number in front of their stall. Similarly, no trader, who is conducting any stall outside the temple premises, after obtaining necessary licence from the concerned Municipality or Grama Panchayat, shall not be permitted to exhibit in front of their stall either the name of Travancore Devaswom Board or the name of the deity or temple. 46. Similarly, no trader, who is conducting any stall outside the temple premises, after obtaining necessary licence from the concerned Municipality or Grama Panchayat, shall not be permitted to exhibit in front of their stall either the name of Travancore Devaswom Board or the name of the deity or temple. 46. The concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer shall take necessary steps to ensure that no trader, who is the successful bidder of any kuthaka item in the temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board is exhibiting in front of his stall either the name of Travancore Devaswom Board or the name of the deity or temple. In case, any trader, who is conducting stall outside the temple premises, after obtaining necessary licence from the concerned Municipality or Grama Panchayat, is exhibiting in front of his stall either the name of Travancore Devaswom Board or the name of the deity or temple, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer shall bring it to the notice of the Secretary of the concerned Municipality or Grama Panchayat, as the case may be, and also the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station. On receipt of any such complaint, the Secretary of the concerned Municipality or Grama Panchayat or the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station shall take necessary action against such a trader, in accordance with law. The Secretary of the 1 st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board shall issue a circular, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, requiring the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer to take necessary action, in terms of the above directions contained in this judgment”. 15. In Rajesh P.R v. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KLT SN 40] , a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] is a party, considered the issue of permission granted by the Travancore Devaswom Board to operate a soda manufacturing and distribution unit to a kuthaka holder who availed the kuthaka right to run a hotel at Marakoottam. After considering the list of kuthaka items, which forms part of the e- tender notification issued by the Devaswom Commissioner, this Court held that the petitioner in that writ petition, who availed the kuthaka right to conduct a hotel at Marakoottam, has no legal right to seek permission of the Travancore Devaswom Board or the Executive Officer to operate a soda manufacturing and distribution unit at the hotel. The kuthaka right granted to him does not enable him to operate a soda manufacturing and distribution unit at Marakoottam. In Rajesh [2025 (1) KLT SN 40] , while dismissing the writ petition filed by the kuthaka holder seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Executive Officer to grant him permission to operate a soda manufacturing and distribution unit during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1200ME (2024- 2025) and to issue necessary order, licence or permit, this Court held thus: “13. In such circumstances, 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. As borne out from the pleadings and materials on record, during previous Mandala - Makaravilakku festival seasons, the petitioner and his father were granted permission to operate soda manufacturing and distribution unit at Marakoottam, though it was not a Kuthaka item in the list of Kuthaka items which forms part of the tender/e - tender notifications issued by the additional 5 th respondent Devaswom Commissioner. The action of the 2 nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and the 3 rd respondent Executive Officer, Sabarimala in granting such permission to the petitioner and his father, openly flouting the tender conditions, without conducting a tender process, is per se arbitrary and illegal. The additional 4th respondent Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the said issue, after verifying the relevant records, and submit a report before this Court, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, which shall be numbered as DBAR and listed before the Devaswom Bench.” 16. The perusal of the records would show that the additional 7 th respondent obtained Stall No.113 of Pamba Manappuram by successful bidding for an amount of Rs.14,20,000/-. The perusal of the records would show that the additional 7 th respondent obtained Stall No.113 of Pamba Manappuram by successful bidding for an amount of Rs.14,20,000/-. The terms and conditions of the auction of various kuthaka items in Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1200 M.E (2024-25) are produced by the 3 rd respondent for the perusal of this Court along with the memo dated 20.05.2025. Condition Nos. 5, 7, 19, 26, 33, 36 of the said tender conditions read thus; 17. Conditions Nos. 5, 7 and 19 would show that the name and address of the person who participates in the tender and obtains the Kuthaka right have to be disclosed before participating in the tender itself. The additional 7 th respondent, while participating in the tender, did not disclose the details of Arun Suresh, whom the additional 7 th respondent claims as his partner. The name and address of Arun Suresh is not disclosed at the time of availing the Kuthaka right. Therefore, the contention of the additional 7 th respondent that he along with said Suresh, obtained the Kuthaka right is not believable. 18. By virtue of Clauses 26 and 33 of the tender conditions, the person who obtains the Kuthaka right is entitled to use only the area allotted to them and if they violate any of the tender conditions, the Board can cancel the Kuthaka right and blacklist the Kuthaka holder. The reports of the Superintendent of Police, Devaswom Vigilance Wing and the Duty Magistrate would show that the additional 7 th respondent used more space than allotted to him. He paid the additional amount directed to be paid for using the extra space. 19. From the submissions by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent, we notice that now the extra space occupied by the additional 7 th respondent has been evicted, and he paid the ground rent for that area. The kuthaka right granted to the 7 th respondent was to run the shop exclusively within an area specified in the agreement. The 7 th respondent has absolutely no right to use more area than permitted and sublease portions of the same to 3 rd persons who are not parties to the agreement. The kuthaka right granted to the 7 th respondent was to run the shop exclusively within an area specified in the agreement. The 7 th respondent has absolutely no right to use more area than permitted and sublease portions of the same to 3 rd persons who are not parties to the agreement. The act of the 2 nd respondent is of the nature that has to be seriously viewed, and it cannot be compounded by mere collection of an additional amount for the space illegally occupied by him. The Travancore Devaswom Board has to take other appropriate action also against the kutahaka holder for violation of the tender conditions, apart from the collection of additional amount for the space illegally occupied by the kuthaka holder. Having considered the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, this SSCR is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take appropriate action against the 7th respondent for violation of the tender conditions, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The 3rd respondent, Travancore Devaswom Board is further directed to be more vigilant in the matter of violation of tender conditions by the kuthaka holders and to direct its officials concerned to conduct periodical inspections of the stalls of Kuthaka holders, to find out the violations, if any, and to take timely action.