Kerala High Court Partially Quashes Travancore Devaswom Board Tender for Sabarimala Offerings, Orders Re-Tender and Raps Board for ‘Casual’ Conduct
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar partially quashed the Travancore Devaswom Board’s tender process for three items, including the collection of coconuts and the supply of flowers offered by pilgrims at Sabarimala and Pamba, and directed the Board to conduct a fresh tender for these specific items. The Court found that the extension of the bid-submission deadline was inadequately publicised, disadvantaging other bidders and compromising the fairness and transparency of the process.
The dispute arose from Tender No. ROC-13/2025/SAB (Kuthaka) issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) on 13 August 2025 for the auction of 233 items related to the Sabarimala pilgrimage season. The High Court’s scrutiny was confined to Item Nos. 1, 3, and 85—which concerned the collection of coconuts at Sabarimala’s key locations, flowers at Sannidhanam, and coconuts at Pamba Ganapathi Temple and adjacent temple.
The tender was advertised in regional Malayalam and Tamil newspapers on 18 August 2025, fixing the window for bid submission from 10:00 a.m. on 18 August 2025 to 11:00 a.m. on 27 August 2025. Technical bid scrutiny was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on 28 August 2025 and the opening of financial bids for 10:00 a.m. on 30 August 2025
Petitioner Abdul Majeed C.K. contended that he missed the original cut-off for submission at 11:00 a.m. on 27 August 2025 but later learned that the deadline had been extended to 6:00 p.m. on 28 August 2025. He alleged the extension was not publicised in newspapers as the original tender had been, thereby excluding prospective bidders.
Petitioner Navas Pokkittath Meethal, proprietor of Kuttiyadi Exports, claimed he submitted bids for Items 1 and 85 before 11:00 a.m. on 27 August 2025 and only saw an automated email about the extension at 7:08 p.m. that day, after the original deadline had passed.
Petitioner Saagar Enterprises stated that it had submitted bids on 23 August 2025 and produced evidence that it was informed about the extension only on 29 August 2025—after the revised deadline had expired. It further submitted material indicating that tenders were not yet opened or closed even as of 11 September 2025.
The respondents, including the TDB and successful bidders, argued that the original tender notice had inadvertently misstated the closing time as 11:00 p.m. instead of 11:00 a.m. on 27 August 2025 and that the extension was made to correct confusion. They maintained that the corrigendum was duly uploaded on the e-tender portal and official website, and automated email notifications were sent to registered bidders. They denied any mala fides or arbitrariness.
The petitioners invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, contending that the lack of adequate publicity for the extension violated principles of fairness and transparency under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Court observed that “as per the newspaper publication, bidding was to commence at 10:00 a.m. on 18.08.2025 and close at 11:00 a.m. on 27.08.2025… It is undisputed that the portal was in fact closed at 11:00 a.m. on 27.08.2025.”
On the respondents’ justification, the Bench recorded: “The contention of the respondents is that an inadvertent error had occurred… wherein the closing time was mistakenly shown as 11:00 p.m. on 27.08.2025… However, no contemporaneous record or documentary proof of such complaints has been produced before this Court.”
On the decision to reopen the tender, the Bench stated: “What followed is more troubling. The respondents unilaterally reopened the portal at 7:08 p.m. on 27.08.2025… permitting submission of bids until 6:00 p.m. on 28.08.2025. A corrigendum was uploaded only on the e-tender web portal.”
The Court observed: “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 Bench stated: “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 [vitiates] the extension itself.”
The Court recorded: “The process, as undertaken, was neither fair nor transparent and falls short of the standards required of a public tender… The respondents… were bound to follow transparent, non-discriminatory procedures consistent with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.”
The Bench concluded: “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.”
“Resultantly, these petitions are allowed. Ext.P1 tender insofar as it concerns Item Nos. 1, 3 and 85 therein and all further proceedings including the successful bid of the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.33971 of 2025, 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.33870 of 2025 and respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P.(C) No.33867 of 2025 will stand quashed.”
“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.”
“We record our strong disapproval of the casual manner in which the Travancore Devaswom Board has conducted this tender.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: S. Sujin, T.N. Girija, Nita N.S, Renu B Raj, N. Bharat, Arjun Bbabu C.S, Thressy Thomas, H. Vishnudas, Pooja Surendran - Advocates.
For the Respondents: G. Biju, Standing counsel , Travancore Devaswom Board
Case Title: Abdul Majeed C.K. & Ors. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:72979
Case Number: Writ Petitions (Civil) 33867, 33870, 33971 of 2025
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice K.V. Jayakumar
