Point of Law: It is duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board for running Aymanam Sri. Narasimhaswami Auditorium (Sadyalayam) under Kottayam Group, for the period from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021. He bid auction for an amount of Rs.2,41,000/-. In terms of the tender conditions, the petitioner paid 50% of the auction amount on 18.07.2019, the date of auction itself, as evidenced by Ext.P1 receipt. The petitioner has defaulted payment of the balance auction amount of Rs.1,20,500/-. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to consider Ext.P2 representation dated 05.01.2022, and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to evict him from the premises, which is in his possession pursuant to the remittance made in Ext.P1 receipt.

2. On 21.01.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to file statement. On 01.02.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

“The petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the Travancore Devaswom Board for running Aymanam Sri. Narasimhaswami Auditorium (Sadyalayam) in Aymanam Sri. Narasimhaswami Temple, in Kottayam district, for the period from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021. The auction was for an amount of Rs.2,41,000/-. The petitioner remitted half of the auction amount, i.e., Rs.1,20,500 on 18.07.2019, as evidenced by Ext.P1 receipt. Thereafter, the petitioner defaulted remittance of the balance instalment amounting to Rs.1,20,500/-. Though the period of contract was only upto 31.07.2021, the petitioner, who is a defaulter, is still in possession of the Sadyalayam. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that the petitioner has not even cleared the electricity charges. List on 03.02.2022 for further consideration. Affidavit of the 4th respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and that of the 5th respondent Sub Group Officer explaining the facts and circumstances in which the petitioner, who is a defaulter, was permitted to occupy Sadyalayam, even after 31.07.2021, shall be placed on record before the next posting date. Respondents 4 and 5 shall forthwith take over possession of Aymanam Sri. Narasimhaswami Auditorium (Sadyalayam), if found necessary, with police assistance. If any such request is made, the concerned Station House Officer shall render necessary assistance.”

3. Pursuant to the directions contained in the aforesaid order, individual affidavits have been filed by respondents 4 and 5. On 03.02.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already cleared the entire electricity dues of the ‘Sadyalayam’ and possession of the ‘Sadyalayam’ has already been handed over to the 5th respondent Sub Group Officer on 01.02.2022 itself.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board.

5. Going by the averments in the writ petition, petitioner is the successful bidder for running Aymanam Sri. Narasimhaswami Auditorium (Sadyalayam) in Aymanam Sri. Narasimhaswami Temple, for the period from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021. In terms of the tender conditions, the petitioner has remitted 50% of the auction amount on the date of confirmation itself, i.e., 18.07.2019, as evidenced by Ext.P1. The petitioner defaulted payment of the balance amount. According to the petitioner, on account of the restrictions imposed in connection with Covid-19 pandemic, ‘Sadyalayam’ could not be rented out to public for conduct of marriage functions, etc., and it remained closed for six months from the date of handing over the premises to the petitioner. The petitioner has also got a case that he had undertaken cer