JUDGMENT : K. V. Jayakumar, J. The petitioner, Swamy Ayyappa Enterprises, is a partnership firm constituted under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Suresh M.S. as its managing partner. The firm was originally established pursuant to Ext.P1 partnership deed dated 24.10.2014. As per Ext.P1 deed, the primary object of the firm is to engage in the business of distribution of food products, bottled drinking water, beverages and other consumables at Sabarimala, Pampa, Nilakkal and other parts of Kerala and to act as authorized agents/contractors of government institutions, public companies, manufacturers and distributors of various food products. Anil Kumar M.K. and Suresh M.S. were the partners of the firm when it was originally constituted. 2. Ext.P1 partnership deed was subsequently reconstituted as per Ext.P2 deed dated 11.08.2015, pursuant to the retirement of one of the partners, Sri. Anilkumar M. K. Upon his retirement, he was substituted by Sri. Sivaraman M. A. 3. At the time when Ext.P1 partnership deed was executed, two of the partners therein namely Anil Kumar M.K. and Suresh M.S. were also continuing as partners of another firm, namely S.S.A Enterprises, which had been constituted earlier on 05.11.2013, along with one Surendran Tharayil, the 4 th respondent. Ext.P3 is the copy of partnership deed dated 05.11.2013. 4. While so, W.P(C) No 41217/2024 was filed by a devotee seeking inter alia to initiate an enquiry with respect to the contracts for the year 2024-2025 and to find out whether any of the defaulters of the year 2023-2024 had obtained contracts. The managing partner of the petitioner herein was arrayed in his personal capacity as 9th respondent therein. This Court after considering the facts and circumstances disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 28.2.2024 and directed the Devaswom Board to make necessary modifications in the terms and conditions of the e-tender notifications for kuthaka rights in the Devaswoms under the management, requiring the bidders to furnish the name and address proof of the partners/directors in case the tenders are submitted by a partnership firm company. It was further ordered that the details of the partners/directors shall be entered in the relevant register maintained by the Travancore Devaswom Board , in order to ensure that the Partners/Directors of a Partnership/Company which is a defaulter of Kuthaka right are not permitted to participate in the tender process for the subsequent year, in their individual capacity or vice versa. 5. For the festival season 2025-2026, the 2 nd respondent had invited e-tenders from eligible persons for the supply of dry ginger as per Ext.P15 notification dated 30.06.2025. As per Ext.P16, the 2 nd respondent has also invited e-tenders from the eligible persons for the supply of other articles. The last date for the submission of e-tenders was 14.07.2025, and the date fixed for opening of the tenders was 15.07.2025. The petitioner firm submitted tenders through the online portal for the supply of dry ginger, coconut, paper plates, Kettu Nira items and plastic baskets. He received Exts. P17 to P21 acknowledgments from the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent and its officers refused to open the bid submitted by the petitioner, citing the pendency of WP(C). No. 41217/2024. It is pointed out that this Court has not passed any interim order in WP(C). No. 41217/2024 interdicting the petitioner from participating in the tender process. 6. According to the petitioner, the refusal by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to open the e-tenders submitted by the petitioner is on the ground that S.S.A. Enterprises have committed a default in payment to the Board, and that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against S.S.A. Enterprises. The petitioner asserts that mere fact that the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm continues to be a partner in S.S.A. Enterprises cannot be a valid ground to deny consideration of the e-tenders submitted by the petitioner. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to open the tenders submitted by the petitioner for the festival season 2025-26 and as evidenced by Exts. P17 to P21 acknowledgments. 7. The 1 st respondent, Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed a counter contending that the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands and suppressed the material facts. It is contended that the petitioner has submitted separate tenders for the supply of dry ginger, coconut, paper plates, Kettu nira articles and plastic baskets pursuant to Exts. P15 and 16 e-tender notifications. As per clause 1.7 of Ext.P15, the tenders submitted by the defaulters on earlier occasions will not be considered. It is contended that the petitioner has submitted separate tenders for the supply of dry ginger, coconut, paper plates, Kettu nira articles and plastic baskets pursuant to Exts. P15 and 16 e-tender notifications. As per clause 1.7 of Ext.P15, the tenders submitted by the defaulters on earlier occasions will not be considered. The tenderer has to submit an affidavit along with the tender, swearing that he is not a defaulter to the Travancore Devaswom Board on any earlier occasion. Suresh M. S., who is the Managing Partner of Swamy Ayyappa Enterprises, is also a partner of the firm, namely S.S.A. Enterprises. It is stated that in view of the tender clauses and the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner is also a partner of the firm which has defaulted in arrears and hence he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. 8. Sri Krishna Menon, the learned counsel submitted that the liability of S.S. A Enterprises cannot be fastened on the petitioner, though he is also a partner of the said firm. According to him, the petitioner being the managing director of Sree Ayyappa Enterprises and as the Managing Partner of SSA Enterprises is not a partner in Ayyappa Enterprises, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in not opening the tender, both firms being separate legal entities. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that during 2016-2017, the kuthaka right (Sl No.211) to collect parking fee at Nilakkal was awarded to S.S.A Enterprises, being the highest bidder. The bid amount was Rs. 89,17,525/-, and the kuthaka holder remitted only Rs. 69,05,900/-, and the balance amount was not paid. The Travancore Devaswom Board instituted O.S.No.11/2018 to recover the balance amount of Rs. 26,59,136/- with 18% interest. The said suit was decreed, and now E.P. is pending for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 41,37,612/-. The Travancore Devaswom Board has also filed two other suits against S.S.A Enterprises, ie, O.S.No.36/2022 and O.S.No.37/2018. Sri. Suresh M. S. has cleared the liability through O.S.No.36/2022 and O.S.No.37/2018. However SSA Enterprises, in which firm the petitioner is a partner, is a defaulter. 10. It is further submitted that S.S.A. Enterprises had submitted a bid for Sabarimala Kuthaka Item No. 211 relating to the right to collect parking fees at Nilakkal. Sri. Suresh M. S. has cleared the liability through O.S.No.36/2022 and O.S.No.37/2018. However SSA Enterprises, in which firm the petitioner is a partner, is a defaulter. 10. It is further submitted that S.S.A. Enterprises had submitted a bid for Sabarimala Kuthaka Item No. 211 relating to the right to collect parking fees at Nilakkal. In that bid, the driving licence of Sri Suresh M.S., the Managing Partner of Sree Ayyappa Enterprises, was furnished as the identification proof. Furthermore, the technical bid was submitted by M/s Swamy Ayyappa Enterprises, as is evident from Exhibit R1(e). It is also significant that the office address of S.S.A. Enterprises and Swamy Ayyappa Enterprises are identical. These facts, taken together, clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has adopted a deliberate ploy to secure the contract by concealing his true association with the defaulting firm, thereby attempting to hoodwink both the authorities and this Court. 11. The learned counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that from Exts. R1(a) to R1(d), it is evident that Sri Suresh M.S. has entered into multiple partnership agreements over the years with the sole intention of evading his previous contractual liabilities to the Board. It was further contended that the petitioner has approached this Court by suppressing material facts and setting forth false claims. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] , wherein the Apex Court strongly deprecated the practice of suppression of material facts. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [ (1994) 1 SCC 1 ] , where the Court categorically held that suppression of material facts amounts to a fraud on the Court. The Apex Court has consistently held that a litigant who approaches the Court with unclean hands cannot claim equitable relief, and that suppression of material facts is tantamount to fraudulent conduct. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra , [ 1996 (9) SCC 309 ] wherein, the Apex Court held that under the Constitution, a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of writ petition. 12. 12. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 13. Clause 1.7 in Ext. P15 reads as follows: "The tenders submitted by the defaulters on earlier occasions in contract with the Travancore Devaswom Board will not be considered. The tenderer shall submit an affidavit along with the tender swearing that he is not a defaulter to the Travancore Devaswom Board." 14. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 28.02.2024, had occasion to consider the practice of defaulters participating in bids under different partnership firms or companies. In that case, the Managing Partner of Sree Ayyappa Enterprises was arrayed as the 6th respondent. After considering the factual circumstances, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to make necessary modifications in the terms and conditions of e-tender notifications for Kuthaka rights in Devaswoms under its management. Specifically, the Court mandated that bidders should furnish the names and address proof of all partners/directors in cases where the tenders are submitted by a partnership firm or company. It was further ordered that the details of such partners/directors must be entered in the relevant register maintained by the Travancore Devaswom Board, so that partners or directors of defaulting firms are not permitted to participate in subsequent tender processes, either in their individual capacity or by forming a new entity. 15. In the present case, it is not disputed that Sri Suresh M.S., the Managing Partner of Sree Ayyappa Enterprises, is also a partner of S.S.A. Enterprises, which is admittedly a defaulter. At the time of submitting the tender, he did not disclose this fact, despite being under an obligation to do so. 16. The petitioner now attempts to distance himself from S.S.A. Enterprises by contending that the default is attributable to the firm and not to him personally, and that mere partnership in a defaulting firm should not disentitle him from submitting a tender through another firm. This submission cannot be accepted. 17. The lack of bona fides on the part of Sri Suresh M.S., the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm, is clearly evident from Exhibit R1(e), which relates to the tender submitted for Kuthaka Item No. 211 by S.S.A. Enterprises, a defaulting firm, that too for the year 2025. This submission cannot be accepted. 17. The lack of bona fides on the part of Sri Suresh M.S., the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm, is clearly evident from Exhibit R1(e), which relates to the tender submitted for Kuthaka Item No. 211 by S.S.A. Enterprises, a defaulting firm, that too for the year 2025. The identification documents of Sri Suresh M.S., Managing Partner of Sree Ayyappa Enterprises, were furnished, and the technical bid itself was filed in the name of Sree Ayyappa Enterprises. Significantly, the office address of S.S.A. Enterprises and Sree Ayyappa Enterprises are one and the same. These facts leave no room for doubt that the entire exercise was a calculated attempt to circumvent Clause 1.7 of Ext. P15 and the specific directions earlier issued by this Court. If, in compliance with this Court’s directions, the names and address proof of all partners of S.S.A. Enterprises had been duly furnished and entered into the relevant register maintained by the Travancore Devaswom Board, the fact that Sri Suresh M.S. was a partner of the defaulting firm would have come to light. Once such a fact is revealed, the legal consequence is clear: as ordered by this Court, a partner of a defaulting firm cannot participate in the tender process, either in his individual capacity or under the guise of being part of another legal entity. If the device adopted by the petitioner were to be permitted, it would enable any defaulter to constitute a new partnership or company and claim the right to participate in tenders while being a defaulter at the same time . 18. Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act clearly stipulates that every partner is jointly and severally liable with all other partners for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. Thus, every partner of a firm is jointly and severally liable for the obligations of that firm. It is equally well-settled that a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity distinct from its partners. The firm name is merely a compendious expression for the individuals who constitute the partnership; unlike a company, a partnership has no independent legal personality. 19. In view of the discussion above, we are not inclined to grant the relief claimed in this writ petition as the writ petitioner has failed to establish its legal right for seeking the equitable relief of mandamus. 19. In view of the discussion above, we are not inclined to grant the relief claimed in this writ petition as the writ petitioner has failed to establish its legal right for seeking the equitable relief of mandamus. The petitioner has also suppressed material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands. We are of the view that this is a fit case wherein costs are to be ordered. In that view of the matter, while dismissing the writ petition, we order the payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner, which shall be payable to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee, payable to the Member Secretary . If the amount of costs is not paid within two months, it shall be recovered from the petitioner by recourse to revenue recovery proceedings.