Kerala High Court Orders Re-Tender For Collecting Offerings In Sabarimala, Raps Travancore Devaswom Board For 'Casual' Conduct

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering the petitions filed by the unsuccessful participants in the tender process.

The e-tender was advertised in three Malayalam dailies and one Tamil newspaper stating that the bidding would commence at 10 am on 18.08.2025 and close at 11 am on 27.08.2025 while the scrutiny would begin at 11 am on 28.08.2025. It was further advertised that the price bids of successful bidders were to be opened at 10:00 a.m. on 30.08.2025.

As per the TDB, there was a mistake in the notification published in their official website, which showed the closing time as 11 p.m. on 27.08.2025. On 27.08.2025, the website was closed at 11 am and then reopened at 7:08 pm on the same day till 6 pm on 28.08.2025.

A corrigendum was published in the web portal regarding this and technical bid opening date as 9:00 a.m. on 29.08.2025. The same was also done in the official website of the TDB and auto-generated e-mails were sent to persons who already submitted their bids.

Referring to the precedents, the Court observed that the courts have a duty to see whether any deviation from conditions contained in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) occurred has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and whether the same was permissible or in public interest.

The Court noted that from the factual circumstances, “a significant discrepancy arose concerning the last date and time for submission of bids.”

It further observed that there was unilateral reopening of the portal permitting submission of bids until 6 pm the next day. Moreover, though a corrigendum was uploaded on the portal regarding the revision of closing time, no public notice was published in the newspapers unlike the original tender notice.

The Court remarked:

“We are of the considered view that the last date of submission of bids is an essential condition which cannot be tinkered with. The respondents contend that the date in the detailed tender document was erroneous, while the date in the newspaper advertisement was correct. If that be so, when the corrigendum was issued, it ought to have been published with the same prominence as the original notice, both in the newspapers and also on the web portal. Failure to do so undermines the transparency of the tender process.…The circumstances that arise in this case, namely, the belated issuance of the corrigendum, the failure to publish it in newspapers, the advantage thereby conferred or likely to be conferred on a limited set of bidders, and the effective elimination of prospective bidders through lack of public advertisement, squarely raise the spectre of arbitrariness.”

It, thus, set aside the tender concerning item Nos. 1, 3 and 85 in which the petitioners had raised challenges and ordered re-tender of these items by following the correct procedure.

The Court also recorded its strong disapproval of the "casual manner" in which the TDB conducted the tender.

"While acting as a trustee of the temple's offerings, the TDB is expected to adopt a solemn fiduciary duty to adopt procedures that secure the highest possible return for the coconut offerings. Any laxity or departure from the principles of fairness, transparency, and openness not only erodes public confidence but also undermines the very trust reposed in it as custodian of these sacred resources. We further observe that the Board is expected to act with far greater professionalism and vigilance in future and must scrupulously avoid a repetition of such lapses or similar follies," it said.

Case No: WP(C) Nos. 33870/2025, 33867/2025, 33971/2025

Case Title: Abdul Majeed C.K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 624

Counsel for the petitioners: S. Sujin, T.N.Girija, Nita N.S., Renu B. Raj, N. Bharat, Arjun Babu C.S., Thressy Thomas, H. Vishnudas, Pooja Surendran, K. Shaj, Beena N. Kartha, Arun Chand, Bharat Vijay P., Kevin James, Minu Vittorria Paulson, Gopika Gopal, Archana P.P., Ren Shibu, Shehroon Patel A.K., Issac Melvin B.O., Richa Anna George, N.N Sugunapalam (Sr.)

Counsel for the respondents: G. Biju – SC – TDB, Jacob P. Alex, Shibu Joseph, Manu Sankar P., Amal Amir Ali, Binisha Baby, Saritha K.S., Aravind Rajagopalan Menon, Anil D. Nair (Sr.), Rasheed C. Nooranad

Click to Read/Download Judgment