Expected To Act With Far Greater Professionalism: Kerala High Court Directs Travancore Devaswom Board To Re-Tender Collection Of Offerings In Sabarimala

The Kerala High Court has directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to re-tender the collection of coconuts offered by pilgrims and devotees, and supply of flowers in Sabarimala.

A batch of Writ Petitions were preferred before the Court, challenging the Tender and tender conditions insofar as they relate to Item Nos. 1, 3 and 85, issued by TDB.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed, “… we record our strong disapproval of the casual manner in which the Travancore Devaswom Board has conducted this 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.”

The Bench said that TDB while issuing the tender and while finalising the successful bidder, was bound to follow transparent, non-discriminatory procedures consistent with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

“Interest of justice demands that the TDB re-tenders the collection of coconuts and supply of flowers in terms of Item Nos. 1, 3 and 85 therein with a fresh calendar of the events by following the procedure”, it ordered.

Senior Advocate N.N. Sugunapalam, Advocates Sujin. Sri. K. Shaj, Anil D Nair, and Binisha Baby appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocates (Standing Counsel) G. Biju, Jacob P Alex, Shibu Joseph, and Rasheed C. Nooranad appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

Item No. 1 of the tender was related to the collection of coconuts offered by pilgrims and devotees during the period from November 11, 2025 to October 31, 2026 at Pathinettampadi, Saramkuthy, Sabaree Peedam, Karimala, Malanada, and Malikappuram. Item No. 3 was related to the supply of flowers, and Item No. 85 was related to the collection of coconuts during the same period at the Pamba Ganapathi Temple and other nearby temples. The tender was advertised as an e-tender in regional newspapers in August this year. As per the Petitioner in the lead Writ Petition, he was preparing to submit his e-tender but could not do so before 11:00 a.m. on August 27, 2025. Later, he learned that the last date for submission of the tender was extended by one day until 6:00 p.m.

It was contended that, unlike prior practice, this extension was not publicly announced in the newspapers but was communicated only to those already participating in the tender process, thereby preventing prospective bidders like himself from submitting bids. Hence, it was alleged that this belated and non-transparent extension is illegal and deprived the Petitioner and other prospective bidders of the opportunity to revise their bids. The Petitioners further alleged that the Respondents took advantage of the unlawful extension to submit their bids and were consequently declared successful. They also contended that they were prevented from revising their bids until the closure of the portal. In one of the Writ Petitions, it was contended that an earlier tender issued by the Respondents was cancelled without assigning any reasons. Hence, the case was before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court after hearing the arguments of the parties, noted, “It is settled law that, as a 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 those which are merely ancillary or subsidiary to 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 strict literal compliance in appropriate circumstances.”

The Court was of the view that the last date of submission of bids is an essential condition which cannot be tinkered with. It added that issuing the corrigendum solely on the e-tender portal, and that too after the original deadline had expired, ensured that only those who happened to revisit the portal after the initial closure or those people who were privy to the extension could benefit from the same.

“Prospective bidders who relied on the official newspaper advertisement and saw that the deadline had passed were effectively and wrongly excluded. It is difficult to believe that the TDB was in the dark with regard to the discrepancy in the date and time and this had come to the knowledge only after the closure of the bid at 11 am on 27.08.2025”, it remarked.

The Court reiterated that public authorities must scrupulously adhere to norms of fairness and equal treatment in tender matters.

“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. The price of coconuts and flowers, commodities whose market value fluctuates significantly from day to day, makes the timing of bid submissions especially critical; any extension of the deadline could reasonably prompt bidders to revise their offers to reflect current market conditions”, it further said.

The Court added that the Petitioners’ contention that the corrigendum was issued in a manner tailor-made to suit the convenience of particular bidders, with the collateral purpose of excluding bona fide participants, cannot be lightly brushed aside.

“Such conduct strikes at the very heart of competitive public procurement. A foundational principle of tendering is that all interested bidders must have equal and timely access to all material information. When a tender is originally publicised through multiple channels, any corrigendum, especially one extending the submission deadline, must be disseminated with at least the same level of publicity as the original notice. Restricting publication to the web portal alone is manifestly inadequate, inherently non-transparent, and inconsistent with the settled jurisprudence that public authorities must scrupulously ensure fairness and a level playing field in the award of public contracts”, it also observed.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court remarked that the issuance of the corrigendum after the original deadline had already elapsed is fundamentally flawed and it alters the rules of the process after the game was, for many participants, already over.

“Jurisprudence is well-settled that where an amendment to a tender notice materially affects the bidding conditions after the deadline for submission, the appropriate course is to issue a fresh tender to avoid any appearance of impropriety or favouritism. While a mere extension of time may not be as drastic as changing specifications, the failure to provide adequate public notice of such extension is a serious procedural irregularity. We are of the view that the corrigendum is legally sustainable only if it is issued in accordance with law and effectively communicated to all affected parties”, it reiterated.

The Court held that an unfair and belated method of communication vitiates the extension itself and the process, as undertaken, was neither fair nor transparent and falls short of the standards required of a public tender.

“… disposal of the public property by the State or its instrumentalities partakes the character of a trust. The methods to be adopted for disposal of public property must be fair and transparent providing an opportunity to all the interested persons to participate in the process. … In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case wherein this Court would be well justified in interfering with the tender process. We are not satisfied that the disposal of the public property in the instant case has been fair, transparent and beyond reproach as is warranted in law”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the tender insofar as it was related to the concerned items.

Cause Title- Abdul Majeed C.K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:72979)

Click here to read/download the Judgment